A Kentucky lawmaker has proposed a bill that would make it illegal to post content anonymously on the internet. The law would require internet users to register their real names, addresses, and emails with a website, before they contribute. Full names would then be used to identify individual content. The lawmaker backing the bill said it would cut down on "online bullying."
This sounds like unnecessary hand holding to me. Responsible websites are free to set up rules for posting, and sensitive web surfers can avoid disrespectful forums. Plus, how exactly would Kentucky enforce the state's law, which would fine websites up to $1,000 for each offense? The internet doesn't exactly follow state boundaries. Do you think lawmakers should meddle in online etiquette?
Source









Chloe
I think it would be awesome!
I used to find interesting things to read on craigslist's rants and raves all the time, but now it is just full of idiotic racist crap which seems to be from about the same 2 or 3 uneducated rednecks
1I think that's horrific (not to mention stupid- good luck getting websites outside of the U.S. to comply!). Without anonymous we wouldn't have had the war on Scientology or anonymousies popping in to give useful info they otherwise wouldn't be able to.
2It would be interesting for sure! I think most internet regulation measures don't work, which is the beautiful thing about the web! I do think some posters should be held responsible for what they say and do on these sites, but (in my humble opinion) it's not the government's place to enforce e-etiquette.
3I think that's a terrible idea. People are more willing to speak up when their identity is hidden. Debates are richer and fuller, I think, when you don't know who is saying what.
Second, I have a very common name. When I google myself, I don't even come up, and I know of someone who has entirely different beliefs than I do but lives in the same town as me. I wouldn't want what they believe to be seen by a friend who doesn't know exactly where I live and they think it was me.
4The internet is a big and somewhat scary place- I take my online privacy very seriously. I am happy to share info about my life with y'all on here, but I wouldn't have been so eager to sign up if I had to surrender my address. People make anonymous, innocuous, statements all the time: letters to the editor, graffiti, etc. And what about those juicy blogs by prostitutes? Do you really want to say goodbye to those?
5In all seriousness, I do think that this is a dumb idea.
Ridiculous. Part of why the internet works is its anonymity. I agree completely with lizrocks. Without the ability to be anonymous, there wouldn't be the anti-Scientology movement that's going on right now. Also, it would make it difficult for people who have real problems to get help without feeling like they'll be exposing themselves - I'm thinking specifically of forums for support for issues like abortion or rape.
6What a terrible idea. Totalitarianism and a surveillance state (even more so than what we've already got going on), anyone?
7i'd never post again. too many freaks and i don't want them finding me. i used my real first name on here when pop started; HUGE MISTAKE. find another way to keep people honest.
8Ewww! No thanks! Just because people say things I don't like or things that might offend me doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to say it. Isn't that what Freedom of Speech is about?
9I agree, Jude. Horrible idea, very dangerous proposal.
10I do not reveal my full name and address before I speak to others in public; I could never be persuaded to disclose such personal information before communicating on the 'net.
This law begs to suspend individual freedom while unwittingly endangering personal safety -- all in effort to mitigate the occurrence of *cyber-bullying*?
. . . it is a puzzlement, the harm rendered in the wake of some poorly-constructed attempts to "do good."
11The link didn't work for me. But I don't see how this would pass constitutional muster. Laws that require identification on handbills have been held unconstitutional; laws that require registering with the town before going door to door canvassing have been held unconstitutional. And a law that prohibited the use of false names was held unconstitutional. How is this different?
I'm going to venture a guess to say that most of the monikers here are not the person's real name. My parents did not name me remedios.
12it is a very scary idea. From past experience i know what kind of things can happen only when part of your name is available. I don't think I would use the internet ever again if this law is passed. Ultimately it isn't necessary.
13tdamji 14
sadly, this is a typical example of how things are going these days. this is really interesting, though:
what is the relationship of this (banning anyonymous internet posting) to censorship in China (which it seems everyone in North America is so quick to judge, perhaps rightly so), as well as the subject of so many CitizenSugar posts about things like people in Saudi Arabia going to jail or worse for celebrating certain holidays (like Valentine's Day), and the notion of "freedom" generally? Let's look at the bigger picture here. What do you think?
14Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.