A bill in the New York State Senate could limit anonymous comments on websites.
The "Internet Protection Act" would require the web administrator of any New York-based site, including blogs, social networks, online publications and message boards, to "remove any comments posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post," upon request.
Two of the bill's sponsors, Assemb. Dean Murray and Sen. Thomas O'Mara, say the goal is to fight cyberbullying.
What do you think? Does the right to express an opinion outweigh the rights of others not to feel abused?
Please tell us in the comments.
There is virtually no measure that can be put in place that can't be worked around if a poster is clever enough. This is evidenced by Hacktivist group Anonymous, who has continually evaded detection. To simply "remove any comments ... by an anonymous poster" does not solve the problem. No admin has that much dedication that he/she can remove posts as soon as they hit, and at that point, as soon as one person has seen it, the damage is done. I certainly understand the intent, as I'm sure numerous anonymous commentators on this very site perhaps do as well, but I think our Senators underestimate the amount of work that calls for.
In short, it is unconstitutional.
The bad thing is people aren't mature and evolved enough to accept your opinion if it differs from your's. People are sick and twisted enough that they'll stalk you, harrass you and potentially harm you.
History folks, history. The internet isn't anything new. It's just a new format for publishing ideas. Move on, nothing to see here...
Does any one wonder as i do ,can the government actually regulate this? Very tough question..
"It is outrageous that any person can spew vile hateful lies anonymously online, defaming whoever they have a bone to pick with, and even cowardly attack business competitors with slanderous online entries." This is a much bigger problem, many times businesses are being blackmailed and defamed anonymously online without any idea who is behind the attacks
I get asked why. "So the torch and pitchfork, bible thumping redneck know- nothing crowd doesn't burn my house. Is that clear enough for ya, Bunky?" Public discourse, particularly comments by those in a minority, can be separated from bullying, which is a different problem. In the case of that particular paper, the vast majority of editorials, climate change denials, Obama bashing, etc. etc. put me in a (somewhat fearful) relatively small segment of its readership,as far as my views and politics are concerned. No lynchings lately in that conservative, backwater Southern town, but why take a chance? I appreciate the opportunity for the protection of anonymity. My moniker is well known, and often the subject of all manner of vitriol. Some interesting discussions result. The comments are the liveliest section of the paper's on-line edition, and the heart of true public discourse in the community. Otherwise, the low information types would see and hear nothing except the publisher's newspaper slanted diatribes, and hear Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh et al 24/7 on the two radio stations he runs in town, having a virtual monopoly on local media.