NY Lawmakers - End to Internet Anonymity

[druidp]

Hmmm, thoughts? I can see the cyber-bullying angle, but when stuff like that treads into one's personal rights to privacy...

mashable.com/2012/05/23/internet-anonymity/

Lawmakers Call for an End to Internet Anonymity
1 hour ago by Alex Fitzpatrick

Lawmakers in New York State think the root of all Internet evil lies in the anonymous nature by which comments get posted on news websites and social media. Their solution? They’ve introduced Internet anonymity legislation that would make New York-based website owners delete any anonymous posts that other Internet users label as cyberbullying.

Should the bills pass, any Internet user could call up a toll-free number that websites would be required to set up to handle such grievances. Anonymous web users would then have but a single recourse to save their posts if such a compliant is lodged against them: unmask completely by revealing their name and going through an identification process.

Should they refuse, the post must be deleted within 48 hours.

“A web site administrator, upon request, shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name and home address are accurate,” reads the draft legislation, identical versions of which have been introduces in both chambers of New York’s legislature.

State Senator Thomas O’Mara, who introduced the bill in the New York State Senate, told Mashable that his motivation is entirely to “deal with the issue of cyberbulling.”

“Cyberbullying and bullying in general is something that I think is exacerbated by the use of the Internet and the ability to get a claim or an accusation out to a mass of people quickly and anonymously that may be of a bullying sort, or contain untrue accusations,” said O’Mara. “This legislation is an attempt to do something about that.”

O’Mara has not spoken to any website hosts about the legislation, nor does he consider the idea a violation of the First Amendment.

“I’ll be taking comments from web hosts and on the First Amendment into consideration,” said O’Mara. “By no means is this an attempt to infringe upon the First Amendment. I don’t think hosts of websites want to be in a position of fostering false or unsubstantiated information, and I want to work with all interests on the bill.”

Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, disagrees.

“The law is clearly unconstitutional,” said Opsahl. “The right to speak anonymously is part of the First Amendment and has been since the founding of this country. In fact, some of the founding documents of the country were originally written as part of the Federalist Papers, which some of our founding fathers wrote anonymously under pseudonyms. Since then, the Supreme Court has routinely held up the legality of speaking anonymously.”

Read the full text of the legislation here. assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S06779&term=2011&Text=Y


Mashable reached out to the office of State Assemblyman Dean Murray, who introduced the bill in his chamber, but did not immediately receive a response.

Should anonymous Internet users be forced to unmask themselves if a complaint is lodged against them? Sound off in the comments below.

[laurenpetro]

since when do we have a right to speak anonymously? not being a bitch but seriously, i've never heard of this as part of the 1st ammendment.

[druidp]

Here's the main point of the bill:
2. A WEB SITE ADMINISTRATOR UPON REQUEST SHALL REMOVE ANY COMMENTS POSTED ON HIS OR HER WEB SITE BY AN ANONYMOUS POSTER UNLESS SUCH ANONYMOUS POSTER AGREES TO ATTACH HIS OR HER NAME TO THE POST AND CONFIRMS THAT HIS OR HER IP ADDRESS, LEGAL NAME, AND HOME ADDRESS ARE ACCURATE. ALL WEB SITE ADMINISTRATORS SHALL HAVE A CONTACT NUMBER OR E-MAIL ADDRESS POSTED FOR SUCH REMOVAL REQUESTS, CLEARLY VISIBLE IN ANY SECTIONS WHERE COMMENTS ARE POSTED.

So, based on this, is this more of a mandate that any web site administrator has to enforce/police anonymous comments, whereas they didn't before?

[UMaineTeach]

terrible law

[marie427]

I can't imagine this passing. It's just ridiculous. Cyberbullying sucks but this isn't the best way to combat it. It would just cause massive headaches for website administrators.

[statlerwaldorf]

Awful idea

[wawa]

May 23, 2012 14:54:54 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 23, 2012 14:48:32 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

since when do we have a right to speak anonymously? not being a bitch but seriously, i've never heard of this as part of the 1st ammendment.

Since when does the government get to tell newspapers, or bloggers, or FB or any other private online company what they can and can't allow to remain "in print."

Yeah, that's about where i am. This is stupid.

[myst]

May 23, 2012 14:48:32 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

since when do we have a right to speak anonymously? not being a bitch but seriously, i've never heard of this as part of the 1st ammendment.

I assumed the question of constitutionality is infringement on the rights of the websites to dictate what is on their pages.

It seems akin to telling a publisher they can't publish authors with pen names. It's their right to print it.

[laurenpetro]

May 23, 2012 14:54:54 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 23, 2012 14:48:32 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

since when do we have a right to speak anonymously? not being a bitch but seriously, i've never heard of this as part of the 1st ammendment.

Since when does the government get to tell newspapers, or bloggers, or FB or any other private online company what they can and can't allow to remain "in print."

i'm not arguing that they have that right. i was asking if we have the right to speak anonymously under the 1st ammendment.

[laurenpetro]

May 23, 2012 15:18:30 GMT -5 myst said:

May 23, 2012 14:48:32 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

since when do we have a right to speak anonymously? not being a bitch but seriously, i've never heard of this as part of the 1st ammendment.

I assumed the question of constitutionality is infringement on the rights of the websites to dictate what is on their pages.

It seems akin to telling a publisher they can't publish authors with pen names. It's their right to print it.

so isn't that infringement on the rights of the publisher of the website?

[laurenpetro]

May 23, 2012 15:14:51 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

May 23, 2012 14:48:32 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

since when do we have a right to speak anonymously? not being a bitch but seriously, i've never heard of this as part of the 1st ammendment.

Seeing as how I just completed my conlaw video yesterday, I can say that anonymous speech is protected by the first amendment.

I know nothing beyond that, except that it's true because Chemerinsky said so.

THIS is what i meant.

is there anyone else that can expound on this?

[laurenpetro]

May 23, 2012 15:45:15 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 23, 2012 15:41:37 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

i'm not arguing that they have that right. i was asking if we have the right to speak anonymously under the 1st ammendment.

You have the same rights anonymously that you would have in person. Meaning, the government can't intrude on the right, but private companies can, and there are time and place restrictions on speech, but generally political speech is sacrosanct.

but do you have the right to remain anonymous? I think that's what I was really asking.

[emisi]

If we pass something like this, it could have really bad repercussions for things like protesters in China or the middle east. THey depend on anonymity to keep themselves alive.

[ttt]

May 23, 2012 17:21:47 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

May 23, 2012 15:45:15 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

You have the same rights anonymously that you would have in person. Meaning, the government can't intrude on the right, but private companies can, and there are time and place restrictions on speech, but generally political speech is sacrosanct.

but do you have the right to remain anonymous? I think that's what I was really asking.

I don't think you do, but newspapers and websites have the right to allow anonymous comments if they so choose. Freedom of the press and all.

[twotrue]

It's stupid and if it passes NY based websites will just find a way to take their business out of state. I wonder how they determine if it is NY based. By server location? Like NY needs another reason for business to leave.

sent from phone

[emilyj]

May 23, 2012 17:21:47 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

May 23, 2012 15:45:15 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

You have the same rights anonymously that you would have in person. Meaning, the government can't intrude on the right, but private companies can, and there are time and place restrictions on speech, but generally political speech is sacrosanct.

but do you have the right to remain anonymous? I think that's what I was really asking.

I don't know if you have the right to remain anonymous. I do know, from my journalist husband, that newspapers/online news outlets have the right to not allow anonymous comment postings. So there is that. However, that is THEIR decision to do so...not the government mandating that they have to do so.

I do not like this law.

[doctorwho]

May 23, 2012 14:33:09 GMT -5 druidp said:

Lawmakers in New York State think the root of all Internet evil lies in the anonymous nature by which comments get posted on news websites and social media. Their solution? They’ve introduced Internet anonymity legislation that would make New York-based website owners delete any anonymous posts that other Internet users label as cyberbullying.

Constitutional issues aside, this premise is faulty. FB and Twitter aren't anonymous. Are kids getting cyberbullied in the CNN comments or some such thing?

[Anonymous Ironic isnt it]

May 23, 2012 19:52:39 GMT -5 emilyj said:

May 23, 2012 17:21:47 GMT -5 laurenpetro said:

but do you have the right to remain anonymous? I think that's what I was really asking.

I don't know if you have the right to remain anonymous. I do know, from my journalist husband, that newspapers/online news outlets have the right to not allow anonymous comment postings. So there is that. However, that is THEIR decision to do so...not the government mandating that they have to do so.

I do not like this law.

Internet comments are almost always anonymous, though. I can think of very few situation where you're actually identified. Just because I told the NY Times I live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and my name is Dirk Brown and my email address is [e-mail] doesn't mean that actually bears any relation to me, Sophia Jones of Albany who just signed up for the dirk brown gmail address to avoid spam.

[emilyj]

May 23, 2012 21:31:25 GMT -5 @Anonymous Ironic isnt it said:

Internet comments are almost always anonymous, though. I can think of very few situation where you're actually identified. Just because I told the NY Times I live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and my name is Dirk Brown and my email address is [e-mail] doesn't mean that actually bears any relation to me, Sophia Jones of Albany who just signed up for the dirk brown gmail address to avoid spam.

Well, no. You can sign up as Dirk Brown and be anonymous in that respect, but if you post something that is seriously harassing, or something so threatening in nature that the paper deems it serious enough to take action against you, you will be tracked down via your IP address. You aren't that anonymous.

[PinkSquirrel]

May 23, 2012 22:44:59 GMT -5 emilyj said:

May 23, 2012 21:31:25 GMT -5 @Anonymous Ironic isnt it said:

Internet comments are almost always anonymous, though. I can think of very few situation where you're actually identified. Just because I told the NY Times I live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and my name is Dirk Brown and my email address is [e-mail] doesn't mean that actually bears any relation to me, Sophia Jones of Albany who just signed up for the dirk brown gmail address to avoid spam.

Well, no. You can sign up as Dirk Brown and be anonymous in that respect, but if you post something that is seriously harassing, or something so threatening in nature that the paper deems it serious enough to take action against you, you will be tracked down via your IP address. You aren't that anonymous.

Unless you're using free wireless at starbucks or any number of places where people are on the internet anonymously