What is Digg?178 Comments
- scorpy01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+64Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Since the internet is global, this would pertain only to those sites hosted in New Jersey, correct? Given that, wouldn't it be a fair assumption that most people would no longer choose to host their sites in New Jersey? Doesn't that, in the long run, hurt the technology industry in New Jersey? Isn't that bad for the state, in general?
- Swampthing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Sounds like somebody in the New Jersey government was the victim of anonymous posts... But rest assured, the day will come when we will all become accountable for what we say and do on the internet to the point of fearing lawsuits. We're not that far away now...
- locojones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Actually here the state government may indeed be placing an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech. Among the categories of constitutionally protected speech is anonymous speech, which is what is at issue here. And because a government actor is attempting to regulate it, it necessarily implicates the Constitution.
Generally, the government may regulate symbolic speech, like anonymous speech, if it has (1) an important interest, (2) this interest is unrelated to suppression of speech, and (3) the impact on speech is no greater than necessary to achieve the purpose.
Here, the government's stated purpose is to protect against defamatory statements and the injuries that result to people subjected to them.
This interest appears unrelated to the suppression of the speech (afterall, it's not proscribing defamatory speech -- which is constitutionally not protected anyway -- but rather ensuring that the speakers will be identifiable only when sued).
The problem, however, seems to lie in the third factor. Is the incidental impact on speech no greater than necessary? I suggest that it is greater than necessary. Here, citizens will be forced to provide real names and addresses (whether they remain hidden or not) to forums within their jurisdiction in order to continue posting messages. With this knowledge that forum operators possess their real information, this could provide a genuine chilling effect on speech outside the realm of defamatory statements. It could prevent people, for instance, from posting for medical advice, or joining together in support forums, or whistleblowing, where anonymity is the only real guarantee for candor, and where fear of retribution should their posts and their information be made public become a real possibility. So this chilling effect expands way beyond the mere punishment of defamatory posts, and presumes that the private information of posters will be secure from misuse in the hands of private operators.
The contrary argument, however, is that, due to the nature of the internet, there is no better way to protect against defamatory speech on forums than to simply make everyone register their info. And the info will only be accessible when a lawsuit about defamation occurs. So, provided you don't defame anyone, you should still continue to enjoy your anonymous speech. Therefore, the law is narrowly tailored to the purpose.
I find the latter reasoning to be rather weak because it opens the door to encroachments onto other kinds of speech. So if the law fails, I think it will be on the third factor, and that it is overbroad in its effects. - samk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Regarding the question of jurisdiction, New Jersey's laws apply to anyone doing business in the state of New Jersey, regardless of where that business is headquartered, where its products are warehoused, or where its website is hosted.
If a company sells a product to a customer who lives in New Jersey, that is considered by courts as doing business in New Jersey, even if the company never set foot in the state. Web-based businesses will be treated the same way. So this bill, if it becomes law, in theory applies to any website in the world that can be used by someone in New Jersey.
Whether this law is desirable or enforcable is an entirely different matter... - Woknblues, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12The rest of the world will have another chuckle at our expense. This IS freedom of speech. How would you like to write a letter to a newspaper and have your address published w/o your consent? Do you think this will have a negative impact on people's willingness to speak their mind? I say, hell yes it will!! This sucks, and the problem for us Americans is that the only way to enforce this is to do it country wide. Who's next? Wait and see. I hate this. I'll put up with a thousand "asshat" comments from every punk in the country before I will put up with the government saying "Oh REALLY?, AND WHERE ARE YOU FROM?" every time I post a message.
- redDC143C, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11It really amazes me how little U.S. lawmakers really understand about technology. This law would be utterly unenforceable. scorpy01 was also correct, any server outside of New Jersey would be out of their jurisdiction.
@Kinsbane - No one is limiting freedom of speech - servers are private property, so the First doesn't apply. I'm not quite sure what the First Ammendment says in regards to annominity, but I don't think this law voliates it. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Well, we're banning women and gay rights all over the place in this country. Banning another right doesn't seem that out of the ordinary anymore.
- Jeremy78703, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Otto,
You're wrong-- physical presence is not required. There is a 3 part test established in 1997 in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com:
Quoting (http://www.aigclaw.org/tic84.html):
* If the defendant actively directed his Internet business at the state, the state can exercise jurisdiction over the defendant;
* Where a Web site allows the defendant merely to exchange information with customers, the court must assess the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the site to determine if sufficient contacts warrant jurisdiction; and
* If the defendant passively provided information or an advertisement on a Web site without any other contacts within the forum state, the forum state cannot exercise jurisdiction.
So if you live in California and have a website that resides on a server in Nevada, and your website is called NewJerseySmackDown.com and it's listed all over the web with keywords that target NJ, then you ARE subject to NJ courts jurisdiction.
And per Test #2, the Zippo court said that the more interactive your site is in any jurisdiction, the more you become subject to jurisdiction there.
Believe it or not, courts to do write decisions that allow for grey area. Jurisdiction is a VERY grey.
This law basically means that if you run a forum that is interactive for people in New Jersey, someone could file suit against you. And if you are a small guy, hiring an attorney to simply defend you and your website is probably going to break you (you have $50k laying around?).
So the upshot is that webmasters, to avoid getting sued, will just NOT create interactive forums accessible by New Jersey residents. I can just see it now "Live in NJ? Click here to leave this website". - dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7samk:
This will most likely not be enforceable. If some way to enforce it comes along sites will most likely just not accept any connections from NJ IP address and not ship anything to a NJ address. It will not take long for NJ to realize that they are not bigger than the internet and cannot dictate its terms. Then they will come crawling back. - Kinsbane, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14So, wait, when did we lose freedom of speech? Did I miss that in the turmoil surrounding the Patriot Act?
- zweben, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Dumb as hell. I live in NJ so this would (slightly) effect me. I don't care about the name as much as the address. I don't want to be forced to give every little blog site I post on my address.
- scorpy01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6SAMK: Perhaps I'm missing something but I didn't see anything in that bill that specifies "commercial sites." Seems anyone hosting a forum would be subject to that law. Most of the forums I frequent are not sponsored by a business. They may ask for donations to keep the forum or the open source software they offer or whatever available, but they're not commercial.
I'm afraid this all boils down to the problem of lawmakers and other elected officials believing that they can somehow control every aspect of life. I've given up on the "No New Taxes" pledge. How about a "No New Laws" pledge? - Raldikuk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Sure, I hate those types just as much as you probably do. I "turn the other cheek". If there's somebody being annoying, you just ignore them. How hard is that? It's just like when you're in the real-world.
- geekchic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I presume that this is just part of the MySpace scare about so called abusive messages about schools etc being posted on to the site.
- bryan8m, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5How would websites verify that you provided them with a valid address? Would would stop you from giving them fake information like can be done now?
- lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm from New Jersey and we are pretty angry about this bill. Local community blogs are already on top of this. I've already called my assemblyman and Biondi's office. Governor Corzine is planning to be a Montclair State University tonight and I hope someone informs him of this ridiculous bill. We have the say on top of this but my guess is that this bill will not pass. Biondi should be embarrassed for submitting this bill.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Why do people feel the need to hide?"
Religious intollerance.
Political intollerance.
Harassment.
Whistle blowing.
Anonymous sourcing of important information.
Personal preference.
So not to upset their boss.
There are all sorts of reasons for anonymity. Many valid. Some not valid. - Flanker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So, serra, what's your real name and address?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm actually pretty confused as to how interstate commerce and e-commerce interact, legally. This could have re-sounding effects on the entire country. With people in CA.. communicating with people in NJ, being able to be prosecuted under NJ law. I could be wrong though.
- funderbolt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Worse things have gotten past than this Act. DMCA, Patriot Act... need I go on?
- funderbolt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"The internet can not be controlled by the government"
I beg to differ...
http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen
vs.
http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen
The quick and dirty example. - agimat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Sponsored by:
Assemblyman PETER J. BIONDI
District 16 (Morris and Somerset)" - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5headzoo: "Freedom of speech has never given people the right to say malicious things towards others, and it's never given you the right to make false claims against another person."
No, but freedom of speech DOES protect your rights to say some things anonymously, which is the actual problem with this law. Anonymous speech is protected in some circumstances, and a blanket law requiring you to be non-anonymous in order to speak would be unconstitutional. - Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4By creating an online persona and sticking with it, you ARE accepting "responsibility" for your post. Most people that I know stick with one alias throughout all their internet travels, and therefore carry the burden or benefits that come with it. The reason I don't post under my actual name is much more practical. Given that ID theft is rather easy and nearly any asshat with an internet connection can whip up a fake ID card with your name and get a credit card with it, I'd rather not let that happen so easily and take measures to protect myself. Makes sense to me.
Plus we might work in a cooperation or business where we don't agree with all the descisions made and could easily be fired for putting to paper what we really thought of some of their practices. It allows a shield of sorts without resorting to outright cowardice. I and many of my fellow works think some of our policies at work are outright stupid, but the consequences of bringing to light such thoughts could result in some situations which are far more unpleasant than becoming a homeless bum or losing our jobs, because of our occupation. - mithra, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Holy anonymity! Like this law will ever fly!!
- Anchoret, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6There are a number of conflicting laws and court rulings here.
The USSC has confirmed that there is a constitutional right to "publish anonymously," yet (as Digg users may remember) there is now a new federal law against the anonymous posting of "annoying" Internet traffic, without defining what "annoying" is.
Will it stand up in court? I'm worried that in the current political climate, it will.
BTW, I have been anonymously posting to the Internet nearly every day for twenty-three (23) years, and have no intention of stopping. - AlexPAdams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Doesn't this conflict with the federal Communications Decency Act? "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4samk: No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. New Jersey's laws only apply to people and businesses with physical presence in New Jersey. They can try to make laws that say otherwise, but the fact of the matter is that New Jersey is just SOL trying to enforce their laws on anybody outside their jurisdiction.
- Jeremy78703, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Two thoughts on this:
#1 This is proposed state law attempts to contradict Federal Law. 47 USC Section 230 says, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
It does not say "...except when an ICS doesn't collect personally-identifying information from the ICP." States don't have the right to override Federal law, so this is a non-starter.
#2 This smacks of a personal vendetta. In 2002, 4 New Jersey Republicans (including the local GOP chairman) LOST a libel suit that attempted to hold the website EyeOnEmerson.com liable for anonymous comments. Actually they lost twice- once in court and again on appeal.
N.J. judge dismisses lawsuit over anonymous Web site criticism
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15574
New Jersey Court of Appeals rules for EyeOnEmerson website [eff.org]
http://www.eff.org/legal/ISP_liability/CDA230/donato_v_moldow.pdf
In losing their attorney said, "It is far from over. We will appeal the decision. If we need to, our clients are prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court."
Or, if you are politically connected in New Jersey, maybe you just go to your party and get them to take up your crusade. - canadian0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Though this does seem unfair, it appears digg users latch on to a more potent wording that shocks them, as most people do.
- sensor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This is just unbelievable... they can not make this bill into law or they'll make themselves look like complete idiots.
- GhostFreeman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why is it they want to strip us of anonymity on the internet?
- canadian0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This attempt is absolutely ridiculous. The right to remain anonymous when writing is implied under the first amendment. How can a comment made anonymously be defamatory when there is absolutely no credibility in the author? This is another attempt to restrict free speech by making people feel they are always under watch from the government and powerful business.
- nefarious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its not really a question about prosecution or not. The real issue here, as many have states, is liable. Any blogs, forums, or postings on the Internet are now considered media. As such, those who post can be treated like news reporters. You can thank all the ppl who have posted threats, hate, violence, or any other items that incite hate or motivate ppl to violence. Those ppl hide behind the amendment of freedom of the press and as such, can hardly be touched. Since they used such amendment to hide behind when they were faced with prosecution, a law has been created to also hold them accountable for liable just like newspapers are. Granted, this would be hard to enforce but just like the RIAA, they will prosecute the little guys to scare everyone. Unfortunately, like with any website, there is no way to verify the address they give is a legal address unless the government allows a database to be run against their database for legal address and names (but that would give rise to higher identity theft). You also have to remember nothing stops you from using your neighbors info to post on a forum. You then run into what IP address it came from and there is no way to have a directory of IP address unless ISPs start offering static IP address which would compromise computer security which we all know no ISP wants to deal with. Then again, you can always hack into a wireless connection (piggybaking) then your ISP is not traceable to the source. This in no way is enforceable but if it does make it thru the courts, its does pose a high risk for ISPs who have to record that info. What will be left is that you wont be able to have blogs, forums, or post anything on the internet unless you have a lawyer who can review all your stuff. But, instead of complaining, we need to contact our isps to see how this affects us, contact our hosting companies or those who hold our DNS info. We need to find a way to bring public attention to this to keep it from happening. I feel like an old person now by saying this bu write to your congressman (which I know wont happen) to bring national attention. Granted, we need some regulation on the internet but not from a government but more like a committee that can oversee the interest of everyone. Best thing to do (for those who supply membership to ppl who sign up), post a disclaimer that address this law.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I admire you for posting with your real name, but implying that you must use your real name to post in a responsible manner is just wrong. I stand behind every post I've ever made on the Internet, and although there might be a few from my younger days that would embarrass me I take great pride in what I have written.
So why wouldn't I want my real name plastered all over every post? Some information is just private. I sometimes post information about health problems or personal relationships that I would just assume remain anonymous. Particularly if my post involves other people it needs to remain anonymous--while I might choose to give up my own anonymity I can't make that decision for others.
Other times it's just pragmatism. I don't want current and future employers, friends, and others to be able to pull up every post I've ever made on the Internet. While I stand behind everything I say I don't necessarily want my boss or even my wife to know every website I visit and every thought that goes through my head. There are some discussions I have that while appropriate on the Internet might not be something I would choose to discuss at the water-cooler.
Finally I see a safety issue. While it isn't something I personally worry about a great deal posting with your real name opens you up to being tracked down. There are people that have extreme views on abortion, religion, politics, sports--whatever. I don't really want to open myself up to being harassed and stalked by someone because I offended them somehow.
In real life I'm very conservative about sharing my views on subjects. I suppose I am afraid of being judged. The anonymity of the Internet gives me an opportunity to be more open. I don't feel it gives me license to be a jerk or attack people. In fact I would argue that the "Internet me" is more true to myself than the "real me". Unfortunately not everyone is so responsible--but I'm not sure how you can legislate personal responsibility. - moosebumps, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I don't use my real name so those creepy internet predators will have a harder time hunting me down.
Kevin Rose uses his own name because he's a famous superstar and can afford body guards. - FatD, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6PETER J. BIONDI hates CHILDREN
- geekluv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why is this hitting the front page now even though I posted it 3 days ago?!?! Doesn't anybody use the freakin search function here?
http://digg.com/technology/New_Jersey_Assemblyman_introduced_bill_to_force_online_identification - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think we're just talking about words here, not actions. What exactly is the risk of anonymous speech? What are you so afraid of?
Don't you think it might be possible that someone might be reluctant to speak out against a repressive government if they had to disclose their identity each time? Do you really like that idea?
Do you know what it is like to live in a repressive country like that?
All we need is enough people thinking like you, and you will get your chance to find out just what it is like... - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You still have freedom of speech - with the voices in your head. Other than that, yea it was in the RealSpeach act. If terrorists can't talk to anyone, how can they possibly hurt us? We finally foiled them!
You talk, you go to jail. Simple. - pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good, now the Myspace sex offenders will have more choice :D
I can't wait for this to be tied into your National ID (sorry, I meant your federally mandated State ID/ Drivers licenses). Now all of your Internet history can easily be integrated into your TIA file proving that you are not a terrorist and you are who you say you are online.
The Internet=anonymous flame wars. It always has and always will. Some New Jersey politician gets his feelings hurt online and decides to punish everyone? Vote out the idiots who proposed this! - kithraya, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"No one is limiting freedom of speech - servers are private property, so the First doesn't apply."
If the government creates a law restricting free speech, the 1st does apply. If the operator of an individual server posts a policy that says "no anonymous posting", then the whole private property issues come into play. But by definition, the 1st covers the government's attempts to pass laws restricting free speech. - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2RE: This is why the government loves welfare. They keep the poor, well poor,
[reply] This is complete crap. I challenge you to tell me what they do to keep the poor in that situation.
I'm a former food stamp worker. I can tell you that the system does have it's limits and it's problems. But, it doesn't try to keep people down. In fact, they do an awful lot to get people trained and into decent jobs. The problem is that there are a lot of things welfare can't do. It can't cure your physical ailments. It can't make you smart if you're dumb. It can't keep you out of abusive relationships. It can't fix the attitude and behavioral issues that keep a lot of people poor. It - LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What scares me most is that content providers who cannot successfully enforce this law (since when did the onus of enforcement fall upon citizens?) can be held liable. In other words, any user who registers with bogus information and makes defamatory remarks about someone puts the content provider at risk of being sued.
- microdude431, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What will they do if someone uses a proxy... hehe
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You still would have the right to free speech, just not the right to make anonymous threats or statements on the Internet.
- Ambimom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are hundreds of bills introduced into the NJ legislature; few ever get either a hearing or a floor vote. Two things rule in NJ: crooked politics and a greasy hand filled with cash. Such a measure is neither enforceable nor likely constitutional.
- LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nah, politicians' interns have way too much fun fabricating stories about their opponents on Wikipedia. This'll never fly.
- LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The problem I see with this is that the content provider can be held liable if it fails to successfully enforce registration with accurate information. THIS is where the problem is. In order to mitigate the risk of litigation, any forum admin would have to verify the legitimacy of every account before the user is allowed to post out of fear that the user may in the future post defamatory remarks under a false identity.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It seems as if they want to do this to avoid the usual...whistleblowing, harrassment, etc.
Of course, we have laws for all of these already.
This is just another attempt and trying to make technology a legal entity/enforcer of some sort.
No different that congress getting duped by the media companies to write the DMCA when we had laws that already covered all of that already. -
Show 51 - 100 of 175 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is