NY Looks To Pass Anti-Anonymous Bill

[Rydian]

NY Bill S6779-2011 seems to have good intentions to protect against cyber-bullying, but probably goes way too far.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 contains definitions and requires a website administrator,
upon request to remove any comments posted on his or her website by
an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach
his or her name to the post and confirms his or her address, legal
name, and home address are accurate.

Bill

Pft, Costello just wants to come visit me and play pirated smash bros.

 

[DSGamer64]

Doesn't make sense. Shouldn't anonymous posts still have an IP address tagged to them? Also, how many websites allow anonymous posting these days with all the spam bots running rampant around the net.

 

[air2004]

This is how it starts.

 

[Rydian]

Doesn't make sense. Shouldn't anonymous posts still have an IP address tagged to them?

With just an IP they have to go get the info from the ISP and then hope it wasn't a proxy and all that jass.

Also, how many websites allow anonymous posting these days with all the spam bots running rampant around the net.

What we call "forum names" they call "anonymous".

 

[Thesolcity]

I hate these cyber-bullying measures, they're absolute bullshit. Those commercials can piss off too.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

David Smith from 2376 N. Appaloosa Ln., Texas says: FAK U MTHR FKER I KILL YOU

 

[The Milkman]

I just don't understand the concept of cyber bullying overall. I mean, if some retard over the internet clearly has nothing to do other then follow you around a forum and criticize your posts or troll you, why do you give a fuck about what they say?

 

[triassic911]

Would be cool if all our usernames changed to 'Anon'. I think we end up talking to each other very differently.

 

[Sicklyboy]

Doesn't make sense. Shouldn't anonymous posts still have an IP address tagged to them?

With just an IP they have to go get the info from the ISP and then hope it wasn't a proxy and all that jass.

Also, how many websites allow anonymous posting these days with all the spam bots running rampant around the net.

What we call "forum names" they call "anonymous".

They're really defining a forum username as anonymous? I'll admit I haven't looked at the bill, but based on the few excerpts and reports I had read about it, I had taken it to be mainly directed at places such as news websites that previously allowed anyone to comment, even without a username.

 

[Frank Cadena]

Wow, cyber-bullyiing is really such a big issue? Enough to strip a person's right to privacy and safety? Because I just ignore bullies on the internet unless they're right in my face in person. Even then I could just run away. I'm pretty fast.

 

[Hyro-Sama]

Cyber-Bullying is bullshit. Just quit Facebook or whatever social networking your using to stop being bullied online. Done.

 

[Rydian]

They're really defining a forum username as anonymous? I'll admit I haven't looked at the bill, but based on the few excerpts and reports I had read about it, I had taken it to be mainly directed at places such as news websites that previously allowed anyone to comment, even without a username.

They consider a forum anonymous as far as an actual name and home address and such is considered. I quoted part of the bill's own self-presented summary.

 

[FireGrey]

Cause getting stabbed during your sleep is better than being called a fanboy.

 

[Haloman800]

Consequences will never be the same.

On a more serious note, New York is going to ban posting anonymously, yet they legalized viewing child porn?

So, according to New York law, keeping your identity a secret is wrong but viewing naked underaged children in lewd acts is not?

 

[Rydian]

Consequences will never be the same.

On a more serious note, New York is going to ban posting anonymously, yet they legalized viewing child porn?

So, according to New York law, keeping your identity a secret is wrong but viewing naked underaged children in lewd acts is not?

Link?

 

[Thesolcity]

Consequences will never be the same.

On a more serious note, New York is going to ban posting anonymously, yet they legalized viewing child porn?

So, according to New York law, keeping your identity a secret is wrong but viewing naked underaged children in lewd acts is not?

Link?

Yes, link please. Considering cp has a federal ban, states should not be able to override it. Unless you're talking about lolicon..

 

[Zerosuit connor]

I've never been cyber bullied and most idiots that do it don't know what a proxy is. They don't need to take it this far, also Zerosuit Connor = Not so anonymous.

 

[Haloman800]

Consequences will never be the same.

On a more serious note, New York is going to ban posting anonymously, yet they legalized viewing child porn?

So, according to New York law, keeping your identity a secret is wrong but viewing naked underaged children in lewd acts is not?

Link?

http://voices.yahoo....y-11331426.html

According to the law, since you're not technically "owning" the Child Porn simply by viewing it online, by their law it's not a crime.

How could anybody approve this? This is sick and disgusting. If states are going to try and use loopholes like this, there should be a national law where viewing child porn at all is illegal.

 

[The Milkman]

Consequences will never be the same.

On a more serious note, New York is going to ban posting anonymously, yet they legalized viewing child porn?

So, according to New York law, keeping your identity a secret is wrong but viewing naked underaged children in lewd acts is not?

Link?

http://voices.yahoo....y-11331426.html

According to the law, since you're not technically "owning" the Child Porn simply by viewing it online, by their law it's not a crime.

How could anybody approve this? This is sick and disgusting. If states are going to try and use loopholes like this, there should be a national law where viewing child porn at all is illegal.

I agree! Not because of the moral aspect, but because most underaged girls don't have much tit to look at to begin with (Chill bro, I'm 15.) Besides, I'm pretty sure its mentally damaging to those children to have to do those acts in the first place, on top of that I wouldn't be surprised if in most cases its raep anyway, either way its breaking a law. Great country we have here, a few idiots do stupid shit because of people on the internet, people in communities like us get to have a right violated, but in that same breath, its alright to look at little girls/boys in lewd acts as long as you don't dare press "Save Image". Its like western civilization just wants to collapse.

 

[Fat D]

"Disgusting" is not really a good motivator for legislation. The children are physically hurt during the production, and the production only. If a video has been produced, it no longer matters how many people watch it. Therefore, I fail to understand why having those videos should be a crime in itself, rather than just evidence of one.
For that matter, where is the crime against a human in purely synthetic stuff, such as drawings? As long as no real child stood model for the act, no real child has been harmed. What is the crime? Is it because it is "icky"? Then do not watch it. That is what I do - I do not find stuff like this attractive, so I do not consume it. Now, can we focus our efforts on preventing actual humans from getting hurt instead of criminalizing those who never hurt one themselves?