Time

Many visitors to blogs and news websites enjoy the liberty to post comments online without revealing their identity, but if a proposed bill in the New York State Assembly is passed, that common practice may become illegal.

Bill Introduced to Ban Anonymous Online Commenting

Time

Many visitors to blogs and news websites enjoy the liberty to post comments online without revealing their identity, but if a proposed bill in the New York State Assembly is passed, that common practice may become illegal.

From Time Magazine:

Watching faceless online passerby troll bloggers or mock fellow scribblers can be a drag, but what if legislators’ answer to online ne’er-do-wells was to ban anonymous comments from websites entirely? That’s what the state of New York is planning to do in identical bills — S.6779 and A.8688 – proposed by the New York State Assembly that would “amend the civil rights law” in order to “[protect] a person’s right to know who is behind an anonymous internet posting.”

The bill would require a web administrator to “upon request remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such 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.” By “web site,” the bill means just what it seems to: Any New York-based website, including “social networks, blogs forums, message boards or any other discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.”

S.6779 is dated March 21, 2012, and stipulates that it will take effect 90 days after becoming law — neither bill has been voted on yet.

Wired noticed the bills on Tuesday and immediately pointed out the disparity between the legislation’s tenets and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While the First Amendment doesn’t specify anonymous speech, the Electronic Frontier Foundations notes that the U.S. Supreme Court “has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment.” Consider the Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), says the EFF, in which the Court ruled that an Ohio statute prohibiting “campaign literature that does not contain the name and address of the person or campaign official issuing the literature” was unconstitutional. Noting that ”[the] decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible,” the Court wrote:

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.

Jump three decades further back to Talley v. California (1960), a Court case involving a similar Los Angeles ordinance relating to handbills (fliers) and a requirement that they include the full names and addresses of sponsors (the Court voided the ordinance). Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted:

Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.

Moreover, Black noted that the Federalist Papers, “written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names,” i.e. had anonymous speech been unlawful at the time, authors Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay would have been forced to disclose their real names (or the Papers would perhaps have simply remained unpublished)

“It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes,” concluded Black.

So the proposed New York legislation is a head-scratcher. Wired notes that it stems from an attempt to combat cyber-bullying, referencing an opinion piece by New York Republican Assemblyman Jim Conte, who argues the bill would “[turn] the spotlight on cyber-bullies by forcing them to reveal their identity or have their post removed.” And Betabeat reports that the bill started with New York Assemblyman Dean Murray, who was himself anonymously accused of domestic violence toward his ex-wife and son in 2010. “The thing that disturbed me the most about it was, once everything was proven false, there was no way to get the comments down,” said Murray. “The important thing here is to give the victims a voice and an opportunity to protect themselves.”

Good intentions or no, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh tells The Daily Caller that the bill won’t pass Constitutional muster, referencing the Talley v. California case and noting that there’s already precedent for unmasking libelous commenters. “If you say something anonymously and it is libelous, I could go to court for an order to identify you,” he told TDC.

23 Comments

  • DaasTorah

    Republicans demand that government not be involved in your private life unless it suits their demands. Absolute hypocrisy!

  • ratamacue76

    Big government is big government no matter who is calling for it. This flies in the face of what Republicans are supposed to stand for. We’ve been calling out Dems for it for quite some time, and when a Republican does it, he should get called out too. It’s time to get rid of the RINO’s like this guy.

  • Milhouse

    These Republicans are obviously not conscious of their obligations to the constitution. They’re NY “Rockefeller” Republicans, not Tea Partiers. They need to be reminded of their oaths, and if they don’t withdraw this bill they need to be primaried.

    The article, though, is wrong when it says that if the bill passes anonymous comments will become illegal. Anonymous comments are protected by the first amendment, so they <i>can’t</i> be illegal. Therefore if the bill passes it will still not be a law, it will merely be a meaningless piece of paper that the legislature passed and that we should feel free to ignore.

  • silenced slaves

    This has far less to do with cyberbullying of children and far more to do with silencing disparate adult viewpoints.

    Make no mistake, this proposed legislation is aimed at adults audacious enough to express themselves in a direct and perhaps not so politically correct manner and is a typical sign of abusive government.

    Some elected officials cannot rest until they gag anybody with the affrontary to disagree with their policies or indeed speak forthrightly or discordantly on any issue.

    There are many in cyberspace whose viewpoints I disagree with and MANY who don’t agree with mine. But irregardless of differences in opinion I think the one thing we can all agree on is the sanctity of free speech as a basic and cardinal cornerstone of civil freedom.

    To voters who will be weighing in on this legislation I’d say to beware of those who would limit your rights to express your opinions and your access to the opinions of others. They truly see themselves as the masters of silenced slaves.

  • CHLEAKS.COM

    The thing about this is as it relates to Crown Heights is that the bullies/Mossrim of CH are the ones who want this law to pass, it is they who will enjoy the benefits of this law passing. After all they want to silence the people and the blogs are killing them, but saving the rest of us.

  • ABOUT TIME

    People should be responsible. It will cut down on a lot of hateful posting

  • AA

    #1 (daas baal habayis hepech Torah): what part of a comment on a public forum is part of “your private life”?

  • Chatzi Fan

    This website (is much better than others) but already blocks too many comments.

  • really??

    first of all whats the point what difference will it make to the world if they know who says what? and if ppl realy want to say bad stuff theyll just make up a name like John Smith- not so hard!

  • Ayn Coulter

    To #1.
    Neither daas nor Torah.
    You consider a shield against anonymous smear, as a weapon of intrusion?
    You speak of an individual as if he were a group?
    Sounds like “Liberal-think” to me.
    Im ayn daas ayn Torah.

  • Unconstitutional

    Even if such a ridiculous bill would ever pass (which it won’t) the courts would strike it down instantly.

  • Nobody

    #1, nothing in that comment makes sense.

    Republicans – we are talking about New York Republicans, they aren’t, they only pretend to be.

    your private life – This is public commenting on the internet. There is no private life involved.

    Hypocrisy – this is about personal responsibility, which Republicans tend to support.

    But this is certainly running afoul the first amendment.

  • useless politicians

    The problem is in general that theres no many useless politicians. Every politician wants to show he/she is doing something and is relevant, so they look to create to laws.

    We need smaller government!!!

  • What is hateful for you...

    To #10

    Who decides whats hateful? Just because you don’t agree with someone that does not mean what hes saying is hateful.

    The Mossrim/Ba’al machlokes of Crown Heights and liberals in general have used this “it’s hateful” tactic every-time their opposition attempt to either respond of simply defend themselves against real (sometimes) baseless hate.

    As one blogger recently posted:
    Crown Heights Definition Of “Achduce”, Unity” and “Peace”

    Achduce, Unity and Peace in Crown Heights is when one side [of aggressors] does acts of violence, Messira, propaganda etc… as they will etc… against others, good innocent people trying to live their lives and raise their families and when these innocent victims cry up to the heaven and scream “OY GEVALD!!!”, they are told to hush up, because “they are causing Machlokes”.

    These web-site and the comments in them have prevented the Mossrim of moving forward.

    Remember, anybody with a different/apposing opinion can always start his own web-site. The people with choose to visit that site and to believe what is written on that site.

    We don’t need BIG government holding our hand and dictating what we should read and write.

  • hehehe

    not 1 comment is signed with the commenters name

    signed, anonympus