You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Illinois state senator pushes anti-anonymity bill
2013-02-22
[DAILYCALLER] A recently introduced bill in the Illinois state Senate would require anonymous website comment posters to reveal their identities if they want to keep their comments online.
If you're going to comment on this post, don't do it anonymously. Use an assumed name.
The bill, called the Internet Posting Removal Act, is sponsored by Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein.
Wonder what party he belongs to?
It states that a "web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the 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."
I presume that's so they can send union thugs to mess you up if they don't like what you post.
The Democratic
I guessed that.
politician's bill, which does not ask for or clarify requirements from entities requesting the comment removal, would take effect 90 days after becoming law.
I wonder if the entities can be anonymous?
Pseudonymous and anonymous comments have long been a critical part of U.S. public discourse, though, and the bill may be on shaky legal ground.
Many of the Federalist Papers were written by some guy named Publius.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) noted on its website that the "right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page."
But only for lefty sites...
"Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the mayor's office before going door-to-door," wrote EFF, noting that the Supreme Court protects Internet commentary as it does pamphleteering.
Possibly because the two are identical, except for one being electronic.
The bill is part of a larger trend of politicians seeking to censor anonymous online speech.
Since all the other problems the nation has have been solved.
The New York State Assembly sought the passage of a similar bill in May 2012, and Arizona politicians worked to ban Internet trolling altogether in April 2012.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law in May 2012, but only after the contentious language was cut.
Personally, I'm all in favor of public execution for trolls, but they probably have a right to be stupid and obnoxious.
Local politicians took similar action in Tennessee in 2012, when the Shelby County Commission pressed for a court order to reveal the identities of online commentators who posted nearly 9,000 comments on Memphis news site, Commercial Appeal.
The very same online commentor? Or 9000 separate commentors?
Posted by:Fred

#11  Pseudonymous and anonymous comments have long been a critical part of U.S. public discourse, though, and the bill may be on shaky legal ground.

Ben (Richard Saunders, Silence Dogood, Anthony Afterwit, Polly Baker, Alice Addertongue, Caelia Shortface and Martha Careful, Busy Body, Benevolous) Franklin, please call your office.

H/T Mental Floss
Posted by: Dopey Sinatra9196   2013-02-22 18:58  

#10  the folks at the EPA do not use their real names for givernment work.
Posted by: airandee   2013-02-22 15:59  

#9  You see, when those old white guys wrote the 1st Ammendment, all they could envision, like muskets and bayonets, was parchment and type press. They had no idea about computers and internet, satellites in space. Its an outdated olde fashioned way of thinking and it is time evolve our allowance of free speech.

Also, you must wear a safety vest with your name and address when commenting at lawmaker events, so that party officials may quickly identify you and where you live so that we may better solve any problems.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2013-02-22 13:15  

#8  Legislators just do not get how the internet works. Illinois can pass a law banning anonymous posting, but it could only be enforced against an Illinois web site. Congress could pass a similar law for the US, but it would only apply to sites in the US. All Fred would have to do is get a Canadian server to avoid it.

A couple of years ago, Canada passed an embargo on any news about some political fight that was going on. Some Canadian passed info to Ed Morrissey at hotair.com who posted it.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2013-02-22 12:16  

#7  Applies to websites in Illinois, presumably.

Also presumably, those will be hard to find in short order.
Posted by: Muggsy Mussolini1226   2013-02-22 11:41  

#6  Too bad, Fred. If I have to use my real name I demand to be paid for my rants.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2013-02-22 11:29  

#5  The Democrats want secrecy, but sign a bill preventing it, seems there's a traitor in their midst.

Or some secret Repub.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2013-02-22 10:12  

#4  I remember the day, not too long ago, when a liberal democrat would rather die than sign on to a bill like this.

What has happened to these guys?
They were always goofy, but DAMN!
Posted by: bigjim-CA   2013-02-22 09:34  

#3   Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein is an asshole
Posted by: Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein.    2013-02-22 08:23  

#2  The very same online commentor? Or 9000 separate commentors?

Yes, it was the strange case of one Richard Windsor, esq. well known bon vivant and dawg about town. It turns out sadly Richard (Dick to his friends) was also a meth addict and could paw out 300 emails and 500 comments per evening given enough water and the occasional scratch behind the ears.
Posted by: Shipman   2013-02-22 01:11  

#1  This bill is bullshit.
Posted by: Anthony Weiner   2013-02-22 00:28  

00:00