NY GOP does not *heart* DU

[WilliamPitt]

Last edited Thu May 24, 2012, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)

...or online comments in general, it seems.

NY Republicans propose ‘clearly unconstitutional’ ban on anonymous online comments

Nearly half of the Republicans serving in the New York State Assembly have proposed legislation that would ban anonymous online comments.

If enacted, the legislation would require websites — including social networks and online newspapers — to remove all anonymous comments that are brought to the attention of administrators.

An anonymous comment could remain if the author “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.”

The rest: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/ny-republicans-propose-unconstitutional-ban-on-anonymous-online-comments/

Pardon the source.

[hlthe2b]

1. Can you say "unconstitutional?"

Of course that doesn't seem to matter to RETHUGS.

On edit, someone ought to cross post this to FREEPERVILLE and a few other RW websites.

[SCantiGOP]

32. It's a wonderful idea

Since the courts have ruled that the SuperPacs are protected free speech, and they don't have to disclose who funds them, this law would require that all of those political ads not be 'anonymous' speech but would have to have the name of the person(s) responsible. As the church lady used to say, "Well, wouldn't that be special."

[awoke_in_2003]

42. anymore, the constitution...

doesn't seem to matter to the democrats, either.

[Jamaal510]

54. You seem to be forgetting the golden rule of RW politics:

[IMG][/IMG]

[JDPriestly]

55. Definitely unconstitutional.

Just ask Publius.

The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist; or, The New Constitution, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and A. McLean.[1] The series' correct title is The Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not emerge until the twentieth century.

At the time of publication, the authorship of the articles was a closely guarded secret, though astute observers guessed that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were the likely authors. Following Hamilton's death in 1804, a list that he drew up became public; it claimed fully two-thirds of the essays for Hamilton, including some that seemed more likely the work of Madison (Nos. 49-58, 62, and 63). The scholarly detective work of Douglass Adair in 1944 postulated the following assignments of authorship, corroborated in 1964 by a computer analysis of the text:

Alexander Hamilton (51 articles: nos. 1, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–36, 59–61, and 65–85)
James Madison (26 articles: nos. 10, 14, 37–58 and 62–63)
John Jay (5 articles: 2–5 and 64).
Nos. 18–20 were the result of a collaboration between Madison and Hamilton.[1]

The authors used the pseudonym "Publius", in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola.[4] While some historians credit Thomas Jefferson's influence, it is Madison who often now receives greater foundational credit as the father of the Constitution despite his repeated rejection of the honor during his lifetime.[citation needed] Madison became a leading member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia (1789–1797), Secretary of State (1801–1809), and ultimately the fourth President of the United States.[5] Hamilton, who had been a leading advocate of national constitutional reform throughout the 1780s and represented New York at the Constitutional Convention, in 1789 became the first Secretary of the Treasury, a post he held until his resignation in 1795. John Jay, who had been secretary for foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation from 1784 through their expiration in 1789, became the first Chief Justice of the United States in 1789, stepping down in 1795 to accept election as governor of New York, a post he held for two terms, retiring in 1801.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

And if they still don't get it, maybe they can ask Poor Richard or Polly Baker (names under which Benjamin Franklin wrote). Then of course there is Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) although he didn't hide his identity too much.

Let's don't even start on the stage names by which Hollywood's most famous and admired have been known.

These New Yorkers are way out of touch with their own history and with reality.

We write under pseudonyms on the internet because we supposedly live in a free country, and we want to enjoy our freedom.

[xtraxritical]

65. This has already been ruled upon by the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court...

<snip>
A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
<snip>

The whole article may be found at https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

[aquart]

68. So maybe the point is to get this before the treasonous Roberts court.

[zeemike]

2. Unbelievable....that is all I can say.

And I would believe it was from the Onion if you had not been the poster.

[lpbk2713]

3. Restrict the right to free speech?

They like to invoke the Constitution and the "founding fathers" so much ... this shows how full of shit they are.


Ed: LMAO ... They might want to rethink one part of this however ... The legislation would “demand that those who spread rumor, conjecture or outright lies online be willing to come forward and defend the comments they post,” Republican Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney added. “We, as a society, have never expected anything less when potentially harmful words are put into print.” Limbaugh's sleazy career might abruptly come to an end.

[LiberalAndProud]

51. Fox News would have to explain themselves.

That would also be special. Please tell me this legislation doesn't stand a chance, because despite the silver lining-- ugh. And how would a state enforce such a measure, I wonder.

[Scootaloo]

60. There are only two parts of the constitution that "count"

The second amendment, and the 14th amendment... And the latter has an asterisk next to it; * - Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

[Arctic Dave]

4. Interesting, I noticed similar ranting on our local papers website.

Must be an ALEC thing being pushed.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Perhaps you're on to something,

it sounds like their MO; anything to disenfranchise or weaken the peoples' voice.

[patrice]

5. GOP shows its ROYAL colors again. Fuck those Tories. nt

[johnnie]

6. That would fuck more repubs than Dems

Trust me.

[GoCubsGo]

18. It sure wouuld.

All their paid sock puppets could stand to lose a pile of money.

[Canuckistanian]

29. The sock puppet industry would be destroyed overnight

How would they catapult the propaganda?

[RitchieRich]

64. Would it?

I assume there would be an exemption of some such crap.

[emulatorloo]

25. True. They are the ones saying the batshit crazy things.

[Horse with no Name]

41. One word. TOPIX.

The majority of the TOPIX sites are toxic cesspools full of T-Partiers and their multitudes of sock puppets.

[aquart]

69. Twitter already tossed my name to the world.

And since Google informed me that I am the only one in America and possibly anywhere with my name, I was not appreciative.

I have no idea why Twitter asked for pseuds if it planned to attach the actual name.

[libodem]

7. Ewwww

Yuck. Suppose I better straighten up and fly right, then.

[Suji to Seoul]

8. cuomo will veto this if it even passes committee

[Arkana]

9. This would bite them in the ass--are they unaware that FoxNation and Freep exist?

[drm604]

10. So they're basically trying to ban the internet.

Good luck with that.

[IDemo]

14. Call it a tubectomy

[WilliamPitt]

12. ThinkProgress version

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/05/24/489417/new-york-lawmakers-encounter-comments-sections-freak-out/

Great headline.

[hifiguy]

13. Silly baggers,

the First Amendment is for everyone.

Where in the blue hell do these cretins come up with "ideas" like this? Stalin and the Austrian corporal with the Chaplin moustache would be proud of them.

[Scuba]

15. It's fairly obvious why they want to know who posted what...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/09/1043864/-Scott-Walker-Supporter-Identifies-Petition-Signers-From-TV-Clip-Harasses-Them-by-Phone

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/30/1060037/-UPDATE-Walker-s-Goons-and-Facebook-Threats-You-Signed-a-Petition-So-We-Know-Where-You-Live-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10841876

[freshwest]

44. +1,000 + K & R. Yes, they want your home address to threaten your life.

Stop expressing anti-Reich wing ideas that might change minds peacefully and lay down to get stomped on.

[progressoid]

16. Oh no, did somebody get their wittle feeling hurt?

[ladym55]

17. Do they realize how many right wingers this will affect?

If I ever want to read hate-filled, stupid (and poorly spelled) comments, I just link to the comments section of any news story. Progressive viewpoints are rarely posted, and when they are, they are usually fairly articulate. On the other hand, knuckle-dragging stupidity and hate fill comment after comment, usually devolving into some version of "I know you are, but what am I?"

This brings stupid legislation to a whole new low.

[treestar]

20. Exactly. It is the hate filled right wingers

who wouldn't post if they had to be revealed as who they are. Unconstitutional as it is, it would actually cut down on right winger comments.

[JoeyT]

38. Right, and they want to make sure those thoughtful and articulate

progressive posts aren't posted at all. Take a look at Facebook and see how careful the average right wing troglodyte is about posting idiotic screeds attached to their real name.

The name, address, and IP is so those same troglodytes can know who to intimidate to make the comments that aren't theirs stop.

[freshwest]

45. Exactly. That's their intent.

[Arugula Latte]

19. But Republicans love "FREEDOM", right?

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. You've got to be kidding

How is this constitutional?

[silverweb]

22. Exemptions for loyal Party Members ...

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"] ... aka those who swear a "loyalty oath" to the RW/GOP. Only.

Happily, I really don't this proposal this is going to go anywhere.

Unless Dems get lazy/complacent and/or want to "make a statement" because this Administration isn't leftist enough for them -- and don't counter reTHUG plots to snatch the White House and full Congressional majority (by any illicit means necessary) in November!

[Pab Sungenis]

39. I love how some folks use GOP criminality

as an excuse to tell liberals to STFD and STFU.

[silverweb]

43. I'm sure.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]However, I said nothing of the kind.

I warned against laziness, complacency, and allowing the RW/GOP just to step in and take over by Dem inaction.

Take your hatchet someplace else.

[Pab Sungenis]

49. Quote....

Unless Dems get lazy/complacent and/or want to "make a statement" because this Administration isn't leftist enough for them

(emphasis mine)

We're in it to win it because Romney would be worse. This kind of shit is just rubbing our noses in the fact that we're stuck trying to elect another conservative Democrat and win or lose in 2012 the result will be used to push an even more conservative candidate off on us in 2016.

You want to know why there's division in the Democratic Party? Because the DLC types like to gloat that their conservative candidate is all we have. Well, we'll get him re-elected but after that you're on your own.

[silverweb]

52. Whatever.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Quibbling and semantic games. I'm not playing.

Adios.

[fascisthunter]

23. Sie Reich must have full control! LOL...

[MineralMan]

24. I'm betting that their right-wing constituents, who make up

most of the commentors on most sites, will let these Assembly members that their idea isn't to their liking.

You can't read any newspaper comments, for example, without seeing that most of those commenting are on the right.

[emulatorloo]

26. FreeRepublic would have to shut down. We would carry on.

[Octafish]

27. That's so BFEE.

Circa 1991. Too bad it didn't make it into the papers, considering all the death, destruction, warmongering, theft and treason since then.

Like you, Will, Gary Trudeau signs his work. Most the rest of us aren't so brave -- nor should we have to be in order to state our mind.

[KurtNYC]

28. What if the anonymous comments are posted by the GOP's favorite people ?

Corporations ?

And aren't SuperPAC funded commercials a form of anonymous comment ??

[Bake]

30. Anonymous comments, BAD! On the other hand ...

... anonymous contributions to Thug Super-PACS are just fine and dandy!

Freakin' hypocrites.

Bake

[DinahMoeHum]

31. Psss psss psss psss psss. Meow meow.

GOP = Pussies

[Dont call me Shirley]

35. Cowards is a better word. Pussys are WAY better and more fun than those gop-cowards.

[The Doctor.]

47. And tougher!

As Betty White said: "Those things can really take a pounding."

[DFW]

33. The Republicans want no speech except Fox speech

Welcome to the Soviet States of America

[Dont call me Shirley]

34. Big Brother is coming for you.

Gop, what a bunch of scaredy whiney bully brats!

[GObamaGO]

36. In a grave (or urn) somewhere

George Orwell is enjoying his vindication.

[mwooldri]

37. Silly piece of legislation, easily worked around.

If THIS is the legislation proposed...



Soooo easily worked around.

Anonymous posters would attach a name to their post. They would simply need to state to the site owner that their IP address, their real name and home address are all accurate. The legislation written as I see it imposes no requirement of site owners to collect this information.

Also this law applies only to sites hosted in NY, not outside of NY.

Toothless legislation that means nothing.

[goclark]

40. K and R

[WillyT]

46. Why Do Republicans HATE America ???

& Rec !!!

[SmileyRose]

48. Why wait for big goobermint to require it?

No one is stopping the Freeps from requiring all their users to show a copy of their driver's license next to all posts.

[47of74]

50. Wait a second...

Wouldn't that put all the members of the GOP 69th Keyboard Warriors Battalion who regularly go on to all news sites to comment anonymously out of business?

[Historic NY]

53. Fortunately they don't have a majority there.

What do Republicans have against free speech....????

[ibegurpard]

56. these dumb shits would be gagging their own supporters

I'd happily put my name behind criticism of these ratfuckers.

[NYC Liberal]

57. The irony is this would make bullying even easier, not prevent it.

Imagine what bullies will do when they have people's real names and/or addresses.

And how are they going to "confirm" everyone's information? Is it on the honor system? And people outside of NY won't give a shit about this law. Any websites based in NY will relocate to New Jersey or elsewhere. Goodbye tax revenue if any of the sites were making money. Idiots.

[Amster Dan]

58. Fuck the GOP

In New York and the other 49 states!

[WhoIsNumberNone]

59. This would shut down a lot of 'internet toughguys'

It would also mean people like me -who don't want to be identified and tracked down by some right wing wacko on a mission from God- would no longer post either.

[loyalkydem]

61. As someone

who has been the victim of anonymous bullying on facebook. I am happy about this bill. I would love to know the names of people who bully me and my friends. I'm tired of people thinking they can hide behind false names and fake pages. I say let the darn bill pass.

[jerseyjack]

62. I guess pamphlets from the likes of Publicus and other founding fathers would be illegal.

[justiceischeap]

63. Seems to me they're giving away secret law enforcement operations with the legislation

What I see these Republicans saying is they want a way to collect information about people. Back room McCarthyism.

[FlaGranny]

66. First thought is

that it would hurt the websites of GOP constituents, teabaggers, right wingnuts, a lot more than liberal sites.

[trumad]

67. Some people say ----that the Patriots suck.

Oh dammit! I guess I now have to report who those "some people" are.

[The Wizard]

70. Does this mean

Gulliver's Travels would be banned? Swift left it at the publishers office as authored by Lemuel Gulliver.