Anonymous Internet Posting Might Become Illegal!!!

ok thanks, I was just wondering if someone had to be charged or not...

not afraid of you wrote:

Whine, whine, whine. I am a Kentuckian, a runner, and I take a bath every day. Being an attorney who practices more or less statewide, I know a bit about the First Amendment and I can tell you this is never going to make it through our legislature. Many Kentuckians enjoy the same vicious anonymous posting you do and would never give it up.

Give it a rest about us and baths. Borrrrinng. Come up with something more creative.

Maureen Sullivan

We need pics to prove you actually take baths.

Oops, you said more creative. Uh, power point of you in the bath? Damn.

dmb wrote:

ok thanks, I was just wondering if someone had to be charged or not...

with a law like this, a violation wouldn't really be necessary because the very existence of the law would cause people to abstain from exercising speech. or at least that would be the argument. in practice, what usually happens with laws like this (laws restricting abortions are similar and perhaps more familiar to some) is the government agrees with whomever is suing them to refrain from enforcing the law until courts have ruled on the validity.

Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying.

Yeah, because knowing someones name stops them bullying you. School children always know who their bullies are when they are off-line, so why would registering to post stop people bullying online??

It may reduce the number of stupid posts on forums and social networking sites, but it wont prevent bullying.

ta daaaaa

chuck d wrote:

with a law like this, a violation wouldn't really be necessary because the very existence of the law would cause people to abstain from exercising speech. or at least that would be the argument. in practice, what usually happens with laws like this (laws restricting abortions are similar and perhaps more familiar to some) is the government agrees with whomever is suing them to refrain from enforcing the law until courts have ruled on the validity.

chuck d,

I'm familiar with the idea of a TRO, but if I went down to court right now and said I need a TRO prohibitting my state from enforcing a new law I wouldn't get it. In my state the people who grant TROs are court commissioners. they wear black robes but they have limited power because they handle matters without adversarial hearings. Enjoining the state, even temporarily, is beyond their jurisdiction. If you want to halt the machinery of the state, you have to get an order from a Judge, which would not be granted until there was notice to all interested parties and a chance for briefing and an evidentiary hearing. That takes a while.

In my experience representing people who are being charged with violating internet regulations, the government doesn't make any kind of agreement not to enforce its laws. Instead it puts the tight pants on you as soon as you suggest that the law is illegal.

I'm not saying this doesn't happen. I'm asking: when has a state ever made such an agreement.

It would be no problem to find someone with standing...like Rojo and Wejo or me or you. I personally do not put up anything I don't want my mom to see anyway, but I will fight to the death for our collective right to be a pain in the ass.

The case could be filed in state court. In KY alone, we have 120 counties and at least 55 judicial circuits, so that's a lotta judges, some of whom would love to kick the General Assembly's ass. The case would most likely be removed to fed court, since there is federal qestion jurisdiction, so wd probably be filed in fed in the first place. Motions for temporary restraining order would be filed with the action.

I personally am wanting to know more about NY Gov. Spitzer (I mean "Client 9"), since i thought he was so squeaky clean. I am seriously bummed about this. He's not helping the Democrats with his indiscretions. There is a dumbass. Right, Mom?

Tim Couch is a former UK quarterback, obviously not T&F.

what your state does with TROs or preliminary injunctions is rather irrelevant. there's a reason inferior federal courts exist. this is one of them.

utah's amendments to their securities laws is one recent example. you need to keep in mind that rarely does a statute like this go into effect immediately upon the governor's signature (or whatever triggers a law's "enactment"). they tend to have effective dates that are a few months out. plenty of time for notice and hearing. even if the effective date is immediately or almost immediately upon signature, these laws don't magically come out of nowhere with no warning to parties.

Chuck D is right. We would have till June 15 or so in KY even if the law went through.

Go Cards!

chuck d wrote:

what your state does with TROs or preliminary injunctions is rather irrelevant. there's a reason inferior federal courts exist. this is one of them.

utah's amendments to their securities laws is one recent example. you need to keep in mind that rarely does a statute like this go into effect immediately upon the governor's signature (or whatever triggers a law's "enactment"). they tend to have effective dates that are a few months out. plenty of time for notice and hearing. even if the effective date is immediately or almost immediately upon signature, these laws don't magically come out of nowhere with no warning to parties.

Of course. Good point about effective dates. I'm satisfied.

1) I'm a Liberal.

2) This idea is BS.

3) Let them enforce it.

bump

Talley v. California is the closest precedent I can think of. I imagine this would be ruled likewise, as it seems to be very similar. The only way you could justify this as constitutional is if you establish that anonymity is protected under the first amendment. It appears, from Talley v. California, that the precedent has been set that anonymity IS protected.

To argue against that, the best I can come up with is that you would try to establish that the reason Talley v. California was ruled as it was is that it was protecting his "freedom to press" and not necessarily his freedom to anonymity. This seems flimsy for a number of reasons though, as you could easily argue that anonymous posting on a message board is a form of press, and you're in nearly the exact same situation as Talley v. California.

So yeah, even if it passes (doubtful), it won't be around for long.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/362/60/

frickin' Kentucky

Hello

And What parental control soft do you prefer?

Bye

Hello

The Most Advanced Quadruped Robot on Earth BigDog Robot video

BigDog is the alpha male of the Boston Dynamics family of robots. It is a quadruped robot that walks, runs, and climbs on rough terrain and carries heavy loads. BigDog is powered by a gasoline engine that drives a hydraulic actuation system. BigDog's legs are articulated like an animal’s, and have compliant elements that absorb shock and recycle energy from one step to the next. BigDog is the size of a large dog or small mule, measuring 1 meter long, 0.7 meters tall and 75 kg weight. More>>>

Download video:

http://www.bostondynamics.com/dist/BigDog.wmv

Its OK if it happens, it will just spawn Internet 2.0

You can always write an anonymous letter to House Rep Couch and bully him around :)

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Mailform/H090.htm

My question is this: What if the anonymous post is slanderous? Isn't it illegal to accuse someone of using PED's without proof? People on this board (and many others) say things they have no legal basis to say and I'm sure they would not saythem if everyone knew who they were.