There is a Kentucky legislator, Tim Couch, who has a very bad idea. Because he's a legislator, he gets to make his bad ideas into bad bills.
He feels that there is a serious problem out there. Online bullying.
And he's got a solution. Of course he does. He wants to ban anonymous posting. Every post online would require it to have a real name, real address and real email associated with it. The real name would be displayed with the post. The web site owner would be liable for ensuring that his site was in compliance ($500 first offense, $1000 each additional).
Beyond the idiotic enforcement problems, this is still an moronicly stupid law. Right now, u235 would owe $500 for themself, and $1000 for each of the other contributors to this blog. Then, on top of that, another $1000 for each visitor reply.
Very quickly, you're well over 10 grand in fines from this site alone because some numbnut lawmaker doesn't like online bullying. This level of stupidity is on the order of Ted Steven's comments about tubes. Frankly, people that far out of touch with the reality of the internet shouldn't ever be in a position to make bills that regulate it. Even if those bills have a snowball's chance in hell of passing properly.
Beyond that, we really don't want MORE information about people being easy to trace online. To be honest, the government should be making more of an effort to educate people about how to protect their privacy online. Identity fraud is a big enough problem without making it easier for the thieves.
Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |