Illinois Politician Seeks To Outlaw Anonymous Comments (But Allow Anonymous Gun Ownership)
from the is-anonymity-good-or-bad? dept
Last year, we wrote about a ridiculous and obviously First Amendment-infringing attempt by some thin-skinned NY politicians to pass a law that would effectively ban anonymous comments online. The mechanism would be that a website would have to remove any comments, upon request, unless the commenter agreed to reveal their name, and connect the comment to their name and home address. As we noted, the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that protecting anonymous speech is a key part of the First Amendment: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.It would appear that Illinois State Senator Ira I. Silverstein needs a refresher course on this basic concept, as he's recently introduced an almost identical bill to the New York one. Seriously. The wording is about as close to identical as you could imagine. Here's the Illinois wording.
Creates the Internet Posting Removal Act. Provides that a web site administrator shall, upon request, remove any posted comments posted by an anonymous poster unless the 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.Here's the widely mocked NY wording:
A WEB SITE ADMINISTRATOR UPON REQUEST SHALL 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. ALL WEB SITE ADMINISTRATORS SHALL HAVE A CONTACT NUMBER OR E-MAIL ADDRESS POSTED FOR SUCH REMOVAL REQUESTS, CLEARLY VISIBLE IN ANY SECTIONS WHERE COMMENTS ARE POSTED.It kind of makes me wonder who is going around giving state politicians this language.
Meanwhile, Jeff Jarvis notes the ultimate irony that the very same Ira I. Silverstein, just days after introducing that bill to effectively ban internet anonymity, proposed another bill to keep gun owner info anonymous, amending the freedom of information act to exempt firearms ownership data from being available to the public.
Whatever you might believe about anonymous comments and/or gun ownership, it's difficult to put both of these laws together and not see some sort of extreme hypocrisy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity, anonymous comments, first amendment, foia, free speech, freedom of information, gun ownership, illinois, internet, ira silverstein
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hard to not see hypocrisy, and easy to see which lobbyists have been to see good ole Ira.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Playing the devil's advocate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If anonymous comments were permitted, then how could the anonymous gun owners track down those who write comments the gun owner does not like?
Think of the 2nd amendment rights of the gun owners! You can't go infringing their rights like that by allowing anonymous comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Politicians should be expected to pass constitutional laws. They are bound by the constitution. They expect us to be bound by the laws they pass. Then those laws should at least be constitutional. It should not take an expensive, time wasting, and court time wasting and risky process of going to court to get an unconstitutional law overturned.
Politicians should be required to know the constitution. Not just the first amendment. Maybe they also should understand the 2nd amendment more carefully as well rather than what they are led to believe that it means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Playing the devil's advocate
Yes, because people with brains who can form proper sentences are far more dangerous than a mob with guns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
oh, how stupid...
...hmm... now that's interesting. I've been reading your blog for quite some time now, but this is the first time that you suggest that this all might be more than mere stupidity.
I agree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prior to the current push to ban guns the MSM paid little attention to gun permit holders. Non criminal gun permit holders I might add.
Personally I am for anonymity is all it's forms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Playing the devil's advocate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Playing the devil's advocate
I'm just pointing out that it can work both ways.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But who the pen is a danger to can work against both good guys and bad guys.
In fact, I would dare say the pen is more of a danger to bad guys. You can always shine more light on a subject by having more information and more verifiable information written about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A vicious cycle
Silverstein responds by trying to pass a law making it illegal for people to call him an idiot.
Dumb moves like that are the reason people are calling him an idiot in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What about forbidding certain individuals from exercising their 'right'? For example, would you agree with the premise that convicted felons should not be forbidden from gun ownership?
Should anyone be allowed to own an assault weapon?
What about nuclear weapons?
Is there somewhere that we draw lines around any of these things?
Maybe you have a right to get married, but states still expect you to get a marriage license.
Why shouldn't driving be a right instead of a privilege? What about fishing? Both of those activities require licenses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Is that enough to allow me to comment, or do you really need the phone number?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sounds like ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is at work again. They push legislation at the state level, moving from state to state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple Explanation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: oh, how stupid...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Republicans all received failing grades!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Since the National Guard IS, oficially, our militia, shoudn't gun ownership automatically include serving in the National Guard?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moving target practice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Truism
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's just insulting!
Think of California, for crying out loud!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
:D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous voting
rubbish.
but, that's the public money at work.
in the private sector, anonymous speech seems lie a natural right.
not sure how they can bann anonymous commenting if the first amendment starts with "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"... it doesn't follow up with "as long as the person speaking makes his address and name public, so we can track him down"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A vicious cycle
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If the gun owner deletes what he wrote, the anonymous commneter can just monitor the persons profile and if they ever write anything again, rinse and repeat!
If the user is tied to a mail like most, the gun owner needs a new mailaddress to get posting again and considering the level of internet knowledge most normal people have...
I love the irony in this combination! Imagine the power of the anonymous post-remover! Good IP tracking and you can essentially censor all you want or find "special interest" people. :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Won't happen....
Now as for the complaint of a lack of a registered database for gun owners....that is also a concept that is unconstitutional and was also struck down in In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010).....which also adheres to the 14th Amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How dare you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Haven't thought really hard about depriving someone of their right for committing a crime but "feels" ok. Will have to consider it more though.
Yes, anyone should be allowed to own an assault weapon. Hard to fight a tyrannical government with anything less (and yes, that is what the 2nd amendment is for).
Nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, no. If a government used those on its own people it would in effect be using it on itself.
Should marriage even be regulated by the government? Why should someone have to ask the government if they can get married?
Driving should be a right otherwise you become a prisoner of your own land. That is crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"...and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate."
I can confirm that these are accurate. Not telling what they are, but they are accurate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Illinois politicians are dumb. Yes. A fact. Correct to the nth degree. Politicians are crass stupid, backstabbing and do not know how to read the constitution or never bothered or worse never cared or even worse know about it all and gave it up for some special interest group.
However this ignores the obvious question of how they got there. Voters put them there. Voters listened to their campaign speeches and liked them enough to vote for them. In the above rant please replace the word politicians for voters and you get the idea.
The best way to be elected in Illinois is name recognition combined with nepotism (family). Is your last name the same as a current senator? Go for it. (Jackson) Are you the son of a famous city mayor and have the same last name? Go for it. (Daley) Is your dad a famous senator and you have some state office you want to run for? Go for it. (Madigan)
Want a new tax to fritter away on corruption and government waste? Just tell the voters its a temporary tax and the voters will believe every word of it. No tax has ever been repealed. Ever.
An Illinois voter is like a bad word. (Related issue is American voter.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We need a law...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did your teachers take their own tests?
Or are you just trying (and failing) to be funny?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Supreme Court stated, however, that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:
Prohibit firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill;
Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; and
Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.
Funny how you left those points out, boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The militia of the United States
§311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
This little piece of law means that I, as a male citizen between 17 and 45, am a member of the 'militia of the United States' and if a militia created by federal law isn't 'well-regulated' then I don't know what is ^_^
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
a militia is every citizen armed and reaedy
the national guard is part of the governemnt military
[ link to this | view in thread ]