S6779 would pretty much end anonymous Internet posting. It was introduced by New York State Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara. Here is part of it: I'm confident it won't pass. Still, it's just disturbing. Here is the intro of his Wiki page: I first found this on Yahoo.
Rebecca: That is an interesting find. I'm not going to address all the aspects of that issue but merely comment on one aspect: Large and small businesses are literally hounded by anonymous attack reviews on websites that carry reviews. The cases are voluminous and overwhelming. In many cases they can kill business. Here is a story on a case wherein the anonymous poster admitted it was he and ultimately a jury awarded a $150,000 fine for posting the fake reviews. The judge upheld the fine. http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/05/what_are_approp.htm Its very rare where an anonymous poster will admit to the truth about attack reviews. Here is a story wherein a dentist claimed that the anonymous writer of brutal attack reviews that ravaged the credibility of his practice and directly insinuated that this dentist abused women in his dental chair, were written by a spurned ex-girlfriend. http://blumenthals.com/blog/2011/03/25/responding-to-fake-reviews-return-of-the-dentist/ True or not??? Who knows? In any case there are serious issues about fake and anonymous review writing. There are counter claims about "freedom of expression" I suspect. There are issues, I suspect about whether "anonymous" should get freedom of expression rights or privileges. Many many issues to explore. Ultimately I suspect this is a big complicated issue.
I think you're just trying to look at this from different angles. However, the fact that it would virtually eliminate unpunished false reviews, is not convincing. I think if someone believes they have a strong case, they can go the defamation route and have records subpoenaed legally. What O'Mara is promoting is the end of freedom of speech on the Internet. A small example is this forum, there have been many heated discussions. I've seen a few unsavory characters that I have no doubt would love to have this information to physically harm, or at the least, stalk their opponents. My main objection is that it would have a chilling effect on any controversial discussion on the Internet.
Rebecca: You are correct. I only highlighted one part of the issue. It has many many facets, including free speech and widespread discussions of any sort. I'm not taking sides on it. Really didn't know about the legislation or how this thing will develop and evolve. I printed the two examples simply because they are interesting. They are also examples of the problems with anonymous reviews and commentary. In the case that went to trial several things are astonishing: 1. The anonymous spammer admitted who he was 2. The size of the penalty awarded by the jury, the acknowledgement by the judge of the penalty and his reasoning ....that the business didn't have to show exact harm. All sort of interesting. In the second case, look who knows who is telling the truth. I actually either emailed or spoke with the dentist. How do I know if he was telling the truth or if the anonymous reviews were factual. In the worst case example I think the reviewer basically claimed that the dentist hit on her while she was drugged and defenseless in the chair. I think that review was removed. I think my initial reaction was as a guy...if I saw that review, I wouldn't care about anything else, but would ensure that no woman I knew would go anywhere near the dentist...and to hell with the rest of the issue; whether it was true or not or if someone was trying to drive the guy out of business. If the brutal reviews were true the guy should lose his licence. If the dentist was telling the truth than the anonymous reviewer(s) were trying to destroy his business with the most malicious destructive lies possible. We have a variety of small businesses. Some of them have been the target of anonymous brutal attack reviews. I am 99% sure at least some but probably most or all were planted by competitors. There are a lot of examples of that around the web placed against thousands of businesses. Its astonishing. (its competition at its worst) I suppose that is what spurred the legislation. We worked through the attacks on our couple of businesses that were attacked. The attack reviews planted against the businesses we have entirely attacked the core of the business. They all did it in roughly the same way. I know they were all false because they made claims on something the businesses absolutely do not do. They were all anonymous. We have no way to track the people who wrote the reviews. Look, I think the issue, as with most issues has many many sides. I'm actually not taking a side. Hopefully the issue gets confronted in an adult manner without getting caught up in political crap and then it gets worked through in adult manners. There are many sides to anonymity both good and bad, imho. I'll be interested to follow the issue.
I think this bill would even have an impact on individuals giving an honest negative review. Maybe the business wouldn't win the lawsuit, but they might be able to make life difficult with threats. But this isn't just about reviews. The bill is vague, far-reaching,to any anonymous Internet posting. For example, having a regular forum discussion. Here is the stated justification of S6779:
Rebecca: I didn't bother looking to see if the legislator was a democrat or republican. I don't want to get involved in the typical name calling that goes into it. Modern technology has created different issues. Bullying can be done anonymously. It can be devastating. Frankly its complex IMHO. If many people work through and argue the issue hopefully all the plusses and minuses can be brought to bear and highlighted...at which point maybe enlightened well thought out alternatives will be found that both can stifle the negative aspects of anonymous attacks and still protect the positives. Issues like this are neither black or white. They merit a lot of consideration. Look the legislation might have created a simple solution. I view this thing as a starting point to flush out all the pros and cons of the issues. Then move forward. The result could be 180 degrees different than that legislation/idea. I have no idea. I think its a good topic to work on.
I'll have to respectfully disagree. Not a starting point. I think they should just LOL at O'Mara, and forget all this nonsense. Why are government workers sitting around thinking of ways to restrict our freedom of speech? It's maddening.
Dear Earl please die . You are a disgrace to humanity , freedom of speech is the ultimate foundation of a society . Take that away and all you have is a jail . Bullshit , the business world has always been deadly and ruthless . This type of stuff is never a major obstacle . Fixed that for ya . Mostly because no one cares about them ? This one is fixed too . THE ALIENS ARE OUT THERE TO GET US MAN !!! AKA you support freedom of speech only if it serves your interest .
Dave has the ability to see issues from a variety of sides. I respect him very much. Your rudeness is uncalled for. I'm not sure why you can't seem to have a conversation lately, in any other mode than one of Extreme Anger.
Simple I don't like the propaganda he's posting . He doesn't seem to be stating opinions but rather to be just trowing enormous amounts of propaganda . In his book anything is liberal is good , anything conservative is bad .
Please die? C'mon Apoc... lighten up a little, we're just talking here anyway, not setting policy. Wouldnt have mattered. This one was introduced by a NY Republican. Meanwhile in NYC we have Bloomberg {who cant decide what party he's in... he was a Dem, switched to GOP, then to Independent} who wants to tell everyone in NYC the appropriate size of non-alcoholic beverages they can purchase {see article} in the name of fighting obesity. [Next we'll have a 5 day waiting period on ice cream cones.] While in office, Bloomberg managed to get the term limit law repealed so he conveniently got to run again. So maybe we just need to avoid the People's Republic of New York altogether. Then again we have DC, where we had the recent bill telling us the Secret Service has the unilateral ability to decide when free speech is instead a felony crime. THAT one had overwhelming support from both parties. So basically we seem to have a boatload of fascists on either side of the aisle. The more we ignore it the worse it's going to get. Not that I think the Occupy guys are going about it in a manner likely to help... but it does explain why the Tea Party has been known to take shots {figuratively} at members on both sides of the aisle. The voting public is idly ignoring the fact that we are collectively frogs in a pot and the heat is getting turned up a little by either side while we enjoy the warmth of our big national hot tub. :02
That's beyond absurd. McDonald's Drive-thru: Customer: Er, I'll take (4) 8oz. drinks, make it Pepsi, and... Order Taker: Wait! Are you playing with me? You think this is a joke? The Gubment has decided 8 ounces is your limit. I don't see anyone else in your car, and don't appreciate your trying to bypass laws intended for your own protection!! Customer: No, no, I swear! I would never do that!!! I have people waiting at home!!! Order Taker: Someone call the TSA! I think a fully invasive search is in order!
Long as they're gonna get the fatties off the sidewalk... obviously a public service... maybe they could do something about ugly people too. I mean, for the sake of health. You're sitting there having a healthy meal with a municipally approved soft drink in your hand and BAM! An ugly person steps into your line of sight and ruins your digestion. All we'd need is a little facial recognition software that won't unlock their front door unless they meet government designed standards of visual acceptability. [Sorry Earl... nothing personal, just an idea whose time has come.]
Isn´t in your country the freedom to be a thief, beggar or hooker the ultimate foundation of society?
Comedy. We can thank Moochelle Obama for this, just like we can thank Nancy Reagan for the war on drugs. I don't mean to sound sexist, but first spouses need to be seen, not heard. They aren't elected, so why the hell are they driving ANY agenda? They aren't royalty. Even Laura Bush, with the push to improve childhood reading could have inadvertently created a slew of laws outlawing illiteracy after the age of 10 or something equally ridiculous. On topic, free speech and personal liberty aside, can you imagine the number of government employees we would have to hire to enforce internet anonymity laws? Anyone who does not want to be identified does not have to work very hard to avoid identification, and that is not going to change for the foreseeable future, even if we blocked all internet traffic from countries without similar laws (the entire rest of the planet). If it ever passed, we should retroactively declare Benjamin Franklin a criminal, as it is now well known that he wrote letters to the editors of several popular newspapers under pen names not his own. Perhaps next they can do something equally intelligent like trying to outlaw lying.
I do like free speech. In fact, I'll disagree with everyone else here who is ripping this idea apart in every way possible. In 2008 a Kentucky state legislator offered similar legislation. He got overwhelmed by attacks, acknowledged it would be difficult to enforce, and dropped the issue: http://www.webpronews.com/rep-couch-feeling-heat-from-ban-on-anonymous-web-postings-2008-03 Some of the reasons why this stuff is brewing up from state legislators, including one GOP meister from NY State this year, and a GOP state legislative meister in 2008 is that it is a repetitive problem. somehow coming up with ways to limit the damaging aspects of anonymous web attacks is not an easy solution. I've actually engaged in some discussions with certain web powers. The many aspects are complex. Those were responses from the tech people ....not the big mouthed legislators, who so far seem to be all members of the GOP, and who so far, I have some sympathy for certain parts of their perspectives. On personal blogs which allow interaction and anonymous commentators...I off the top of my head, don't get the problem. If I control/admin a site...I can nuke any commentator I want. If I didn't want to put up with O_nations primarily worthless commentary I could nuke him. On this forum they have rules about expressing hate, but frankly I don't see them enforced very rigorously. The mods could nuke me for saying that. I was a mod elsewhere. We had tight rules on a variety of commentary besides outright spam. We'd engage somebody we'd see as abusive but frankly they didn't have much leeway. Cross the line. We nuked them. So on some basis I don't see where the NY State reps perspective was. there are issues though where anonymous attacks are causing havoc. I referenced two issues above. That is approximately 2 examples out of millions!!! millions!!! The one's who have the toughest time on this are often small businesses. More often than that the anonymous attacks are from competitors. Its the wild west and it is tough. Frankly I own/partner operate smbs that have been on the receiving end of such attacks. I'm 99.9% sure they were competitors. Frankly the only reason I'm not 100% sure is we put more energy into effectively nullifying the attacks and actually did it in a way....that we stopped them in their tracks a couple of years ago..and haven't had any such anonymous attacks since. Having ended them for the time being I didn't spend any extra time trying to track them down and prove it. But those anonymous attacks can and have ended certain businesses some of the time. It can be brutal. Free speech is not an unlimited freedom. For instance, you can say what you want, but on the other hand you can be sued for slander...and you can lose. You can't use free speech to threaten the life of people here in the US. The classic example described in the legal analysis of the right...is that you can't scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater, cause a stampede of people, cause harm and get away with it. On the other hand I read where in Florida state legislators passed a law that prevented doctors and especially pediatricians from warning parents about owning guns. Last I read the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the particular legislation was unconstitutional as it prohibited free speech by doctors. There are many ways to dissect the issues. Frankly if you slander someone and that person can prove it in a court of law you are going to pay for your big mouth and expression of opinions. Anonymous posters get away from that restriction. I have no problems figuring out how to prevent or mitigate against those issues.
@Obamanation, welcome back! I'm appalled that any elected official would even seriously consider anything S6779 ish. I'm against it mainly for it's chilling effect on freedom of speech. But I wonder as well, if it would drive webmasters to base their sites outside of the US. The restrictions would be a burden. Sorry, to pick such a little piece of your post, but... If S6779 passed, it wouldn't really be "your" blog so much. Even if you liked/wanted the comment, you couldn't choose whether to keep it or not. They could make you delete it, unless the commenter was willing to post his name/address for stalkers.
Rebecca: Didn't get that part. but okay...that is a starting point on a bill. your comment is a good place to adjust it. Ha ha....makes me laugh. so say I have this blog and all my posts are pretty political and totally on target. So say some drive by anonymous hater stops by with a critical set of comments: lets just give that anonymous drive by big mouth a name....say O_bamanation. So he drops by and leaves a bunch of comments that are totally out of whack...but we really don't know who he is where he lives, if he's an adult, did he actually attend a school, is he actually locked up in a loony bin somewhere and has stolen his way into the admin office and stealing their computer time. We just simply don't know. He is anonymous. So you're telling me the law doesn't give me the right to nuke him myself. The law would insist he gets the "yer out" sign and is kicked off and I have nothing to say about it. Okay. I don't like that part of the rule. I'd prefer to do the nuking myself Actually a lot of blogs are pretty anonymous. You could do a certain level of research to track IP's track site ownership, etc....but a site owner can mask him/herself. Clearly a lot of issues. I still think there need to be ways to protect the small businesses that are the targets of anonymous hate attacks whose goal is to drive them out of business. Its bigger than that...but there is some level of abusiveness of anonymity. I think its a tricky issue.
The law could be used to silence individuals with opposing views. I remember a poster in here that would try to get personal information on anyone they were debating. With one person he dug for information and threatened to contact everyone in his family and say he was a closet homosexual leading a double life. The same guy made some comment about what if a different posters granddaughter was raped. On a different occasion, he was able to get yet another posters address from his domain, and posted his full address and pictures with Google Maps. With threads critical of Mo, they could just go through it, and get everyone's name and address for future beheading. The Internet is a BIG place, chances are, if you write anything controversial, there will be some crazy person reading it for future violence. Dave, if someone didn't like your posts on P & R, would it be okay if you post your full name or address, or should they all be deleted? That's just a rhetorical question, don't really post any information. Personally, if we had to, I would not want to contribute to controversial discussions anymore. I would just feel kind of intimidated by that. I don't really need to know "...where he lives, if he's an adult, did he actually attend a school, is he actually locked up in a loony bin somewhere and has stolen his way into the admin office and stealing their computer time..." > We're talking about Internet comments. I can just take the post for what it's worth, and consider any facts. Edit: I just thought of another example. If all US websites required verified name and address or mandatory deletion upon request > that would squash viewpoints of dissenters that reside within the realm of certain governments. My first thought is Iran and China. They could either easily have the comment deleted or get the individuals name and address. It would almost eliminate any first hand criticism of certain countries, as many people would be too fearful of retaliation. Sites like Facebook and Twitter would need to delete dissenting posts, or supply the governments (and everyone else) with their personal information.
I'm going back to my original points and one example. here is the exact anonymous review of a dentist: The dentist was willing to discuss this issue in great detail. he claims the review came from an ex girlfriend who was pissed off after they broke up. Assume he is correct. When you read that review the clear intent is to drive him out of business. No ifs ands or buts. I read the review as if I were a first time reader and a guy with a wife/GF/daughter, or a friend who might consider his services. First reaction....don't go near that office!!! No questions asked. If the dentist's story is true and the reviewer was not anonymous he could sue her for libel. If found guilty the penalty could be huge. That is a serious detriment to attacking a business in an untrue way. With anonymity one can't do that and its a wild world out there. There are thousands possibly tens of thousands of examples of anonymous web based cases of potential slander from anonymous sources. Frankly lots of it comes via competition. Its rough out there. How do you protect people or businesses from malicious destructive anonymous slander? The internet is a gold mine for anonymity. Look I know anonymity has good and bad elements. In repressive worlds its the way to get out truth. Its necessary. I don't deny it. but what about the other issues?