It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by wutz4tom
This stories content concerns me a great deal and I hope everyone takes a moment to read and understands just what this could mean to our internet use and it's future...
Originally posted by ProfEmeritusIf one of these ever passes, more will follow, and sites like ATS will look like an Old West Ghost Town.
Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
While I understand the outrage and inherent danger in this sort of control -
It wouldn't effect me one way or another. I don't post things that I'm not willing to stand behind. What's more, I'm not afraid to say I'm sorry when I'm wrong or own up to a mistake.
I'd have no problem putting my real self behind the name of my posts. Unfortunately, that's dangerous. And that is not what these lawmakers are considering.
I don't think this is a good direction to be taking internet security. Not at all.
Originally posted by CryHavoc
The question really is:
Can you yell 'Fire!' in a crowded chatroom?
Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
I don't disagree with your position. But I have to play devil's advocate. Just so we get a basis for where these lawmakers may be coming from. I just don't believe there is deviltry in every move our state representatives make. I just think their are different stances you can take in dealing with developing problems in regards to the internet.
That being said, I try to understand things from their position also. I understand that dangerous and inappropriate behavior is observed and resulting of the internet.
The internet isn't all roses and sunshine. There are several things that happen in the internet that are downright disturbing. Harassment, stalking, and outright lies is one nefarious use of social media. Another is social groupings of deviants such as child molesters.
The complete lifting of one's intellectual work and taken and spun to belong to another person, simply because they are in the good fortune to know how to turn an idea into something is rampant. But the original germ of that idea, and the person who had it, remains anonymous.
But I also understand people's need for privacy. But then, if you put yourself and ideas out on a public forum - are you really a private person? If you want your word out there in the world, why not the name and face to go with it? Why shouldn't people be responsible for how they act and what they print on the internet? Just like in the real world?
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by CryHavoc
The question really is:
Can you yell 'Fire!' in a crowded chatroom?
No it really isn't and I am not sure where you are trying to draw some logical deep insight with this. An attempt at wit? Expand this some more so we can discuss as you may have a good point but as of now, it is a non-sequitor.
Originally posted by CryHavoc
Of course it was a play on 'yelling Fire! in a crowded room'. Don't you get arrested if you yell Fire! when there isn't a fire? How can the Police arrest you if you do that and you're anonymous?
What happens in the real world if the Police stop you and ask you for ID? What happens if you don't have any?
The owner of a website (and the authorities) should have the right to know who you really are if you cause trouble. Your real name doesn't have to be public knowledge. Just available if legitimately needed.
The ones screaming for this anonymity are the ones that want to get away with causing trouble.
Sorry, the Internet is a privilege, not a right.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by CryHavoc
Of course it was a play on 'yelling Fire! in a crowded room'. Don't you get arrested if you yell Fire! when there isn't a fire? How can the Police arrest you if you do that and you're anonymous?
To play devil's advocate here: what would you be charged on? Yelling "fire" or something else? The answer is crucial here in this discussion.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by CryHavoc
What happens in the real world if the Police stop you and ask you for ID? What happens if you don't have any?
All depends. It is not illegal for you to not have an ID on you. You do know that right? Walking down the street you don't need your papers; this isn't Russia or China or Nazi Germany; yet. You tell the officer your name that is all. Lets say they "bust" you for not producing that ID; what will they charge you with? Failure to maintain on your persons at all time a sanctioned form of ID?
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by ownbestenemy
Well played, my friend. There is nothing further I can add to your well-thought out response to CryHavoc.
reply to post by CryHavoc
It just amazes me when I encounter people who can't tell the difference between 'Free Speech' and inflammatory speech.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by CryHavoc
It just amazes me when I encounter people who can't tell the difference between 'Free Speech' and inflammatory speech.
Nobody is talking about yelling fire in a theater, other than you.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
The issue comes down to being able to express VIEWS, without worrying about whether they will hear a knock on the door in the middle of the night, with Homeland Security taking you away, as a "terrorist".