Comments on: Kentucky to Ban Online Anonymity? http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/webdifference/2008/03/17/kentucky-to-ban-online-anonymity/ A class blog for Harvard Law\'s \"The Web Difference\" (2008) Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:41:39 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Kentucky to Ban Online Anonymity? « Buffalo Wings and Toasted Ravioli http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/webdifference/2008/03/17/kentucky-to-ban-online-anonymity/comment-page-1/#comment-85 Kentucky to Ban Online Anonymity? « Buffalo Wings and Toasted Ravioli Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:26:26 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/webdifference/2008/03/17/kentucky-to-ban-online-anonymit#comment-85 [...] in Anonymity and pseudonymity, Blogs, Privacy. trackback One of the (pseudonymous) bloggers at The Web Difference (a class blog at Harvard Law) notes: A new bill in the Kentucky state legislature would ban [...] [...] in Anonymity and pseudonymity, Blogs, Privacy. trackback One of the (pseudonymous) bloggers at The Web Difference (a class blog at Harvard Law) notes: A new bill in the Kentucky state legislature would ban [...]

]]> By: kparker http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/webdifference/2008/03/17/kentucky-to-ban-online-anonymity/comment-page-1/#comment-78 kparker Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:01:33 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/webdifference/2008/03/17/kentucky-to-ban-online-anonymit#comment-78 Shouldn't CDA 230 preempt any state legislation on this topic short of the likely 1st A problems? I just don't really see this as a very smart or viable solution to the problem short of its various legal failings. EDIT: It seems I'm not the only one that feels that way. According the Ars story from last week: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080310-lawmakers-attempt-to-criminalize-anonymous-posting-doomed.html "Couch—who says that he has been the victim of anonymous Internet criticism himself—acknowledges that the bill is probably unconstitutional and claims that his goal is to draw attention to Internet bullying, which he says is a serious concern for many young people in his district. He does not intend to rally support for the proposal. "I think right now (online posting) is pretty much just on its own. It's a machine that's going to go its own way," Couch told the Lexington Herald-Leader. "The state can try to pass some rules, but I don't really think it would do anything." " And I think I agree with Ars' conclusion: "Proposing an inane, unconstitutional, and unenforceable law seems like a poor way to raise awareness of an issue." Shouldn’t CDA 230 preempt any state legislation on this topic short of the likely 1st A problems? I just don’t really see this as a very smart or viable solution to the problem short of its various legal failings.

EDIT:

It seems I’m not the only one that feels that way. According the Ars story from last week:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080310-lawmakers-attempt-to-criminalize-anonymous-posting-doomed.html

“Couch—who says that he has been the victim of anonymous Internet criticism himself—acknowledges that the bill is probably unconstitutional and claims that his goal is to draw attention to Internet bullying, which he says is a serious concern for many young people in his district. He does not intend to rally support for the proposal. “I think right now (online posting) is pretty much just on its own. It’s a machine that’s going to go its own way,” Couch told the Lexington Herald-Leader. “The state can try to pass some rules, but I don’t really think it would do anything.” ”

And I think I agree with Ars’ conclusion:

“Proposing an inane, unconstitutional, and unenforceable law seems like a poor way to raise awareness of an issue.”

]]> By: purefoppery http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/webdifference/2008/03/17/kentucky-to-ban-online-anonymity/comment-page-1/#comment-76 purefoppery Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:27:37 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/webdifference/2008/03/17/kentucky-to-ban-online-anonymit#comment-76 Keep in mind that this legislation bans all anonymous speech on forums. It has nothing to do with the content of the speech or the type of forum on which the speech occurs. Thus, it doesn't affect "this particular type of speech" except to the extent that it affects all other forum-style speech. Also, site owners are not required to remove postings regardless of whether they receive complaints, except in the case of copyright violations under the DMCA. CDA 230 immunizes site owners absolutely from liability, under the most prevalent current interpretations. This is because site owners likely would remove any complained-about content, regardless of the validity of the complaint, in order to protect liability -- which would suppress a significant amount of speech. Keep in mind that this legislation bans all anonymous speech on forums. It has nothing to do with the content of the speech or the type of forum on which the speech occurs. Thus, it doesn’t affect “this particular type of speech” except to the extent that it affects all other forum-style speech.

Also, site owners are not required to remove postings regardless of whether they receive complaints, except in the case of copyright violations under the DMCA. CDA 230 immunizes site owners absolutely from liability, under the most prevalent current interpretations. This is because site owners likely would remove any complained-about content, regardless of the validity of the complaint, in order to protect liability — which would suppress a significant amount of speech.

]]> By: mpollock http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/webdifference/2008/03/17/kentucky-to-ban-online-anonymity/comment-page-1/#comment-75 mpollock Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:11:32 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/webdifference/2008/03/17/kentucky-to-ban-online-anonymit#comment-75 I don't know much about the AutoAdmit thing, but I was under the impression that they weren't good about removing posts upon complaint. And that seems to be the hook for not holding the site owners responsible (per the Tech Liberation Front article). I generally support the KY law. States should be free to regulate anonymous online speech that their elected legislatures deem more harmful than hurtful. I don't really see the need for constitutionally protected anonymous speech of this kind, at least where there's no strong (political process-based?) argument for why we should encourage this particular type of speech/ debate/ conversation. I don’t know much about the AutoAdmit thing, but I was under the impression that they weren’t good about removing posts upon complaint. And that seems to be the hook for not holding the site owners responsible (per the Tech Liberation Front article).

I generally support the KY law. States should be free to regulate anonymous online speech that their elected legislatures deem more harmful than hurtful. I don’t really see the need for constitutionally protected anonymous speech of this kind, at least where there’s no strong (political process-based?) argument for why we should encourage this particular type of speech/ debate/ conversation.

]]>