I can see why they would do this but it's still too much. Unless someone makes a real threat, kills someone else or some kill them self you don't need to know the persons name besides the best way to deal with troll is to ignore them.
According to the Chicago Tribune link given above, the bill has been axed due to the heat Senator Silverstein faced after proposing said law.
I can certainly agree with the individuals who gave him heat. Sure, the common internet commentor typically has the IQ of a dead raccoon and they tend to use the anonymity of the internet to run their mouths without second thought of consequence, it certainly doesn't justify promoting the steps towards censorship or exploitation of those making such retarded statements from a legal point of view.
"Sure, the common internet commentor typically has the IQ of a dead raccoon and they tend to use the anonymity of the internet to run their mouths without second thought of consequence, it certainly doesn't justify promoting the steps towards censorship or exploitation of those making such retarded statements from a legal point of view."
^ This ^
should take the freedom of speech painting by Norman Rockwell and add typical internet speech which should be forever enshrined, like
Some could put "Blah blah street". Heck, use a false ID. I wonder if it's even lawful to force people to do that. Youtube's been rude to people, telling them they must reveal their true Id. Just what we need, more unsecured content to make more id theft.
Odds are any website would be required to legally affirm your identity, meaning you'd be held legally liable if you lied. Now, the odds of you being held responsible for that lie are incredibly slim, but how stupid would it be to get anything, even a fine, for lying about your address on the Internet?
I guess I'm confused. Have you suffered a catastrophic head wound recently? Because that's the only way that what you said resembles English.
But in spite of that, using my mighty brain I have determined what I think you meant to say, and I'm still not sure that you make any goddamn sense. Are you upset because the honorable representative from Illinois isn't proposing a new voting law to divest people from their vote?
It's very simple. Those who are want this law, want to know who you are online. Yet, it is ironic, that they want proof of who's behind the computer, YET our government allowed illegals to vote int he election. I'm just saying how corrupt it is, that's all.
You realize that "our government" is not just Ira Silverstein, right, and nothing you've put forth so far suggests that anyone but Ira Silverstein agrees with Ira Silverstein.
So your "they" is misleading, if not patently false.
Secondly, "our government" allowed illegals to vote... what? They didn't allow it. It might have happened, and it was more expensive and intrusive on the rights of American voters to stop it than it was worth.
So it's not ironic or evidence of corruption, either.
"with a real name, getting physical address isn't hard."
Only if you have a very uncommon name, and you list your address in the phone book.
And, like I said, if you have an alternative that doesn't require a real name, I'm open to it. But neither you nor the other fellow have offered one so far. He simply argued we shouldn't give any fuck about people who suffer from cyberbullying, even though it's a growing problem that has real detrimental effects on people's lives.
"Only if you have a very uncommon name, and you list your address in the phone book. "
not true. You are very obviously unskilled at internets. I could cross refrence everything you've posted on this public internet forum, to find out which "liz caulkins" is you. In fact, it'd take me about 15 min to find YOU, or any other internet poster who brazenly posts their real name. I'm not going to do this for you, nor any other forums poster, because I am not the type that feels the need to vindicate online arguments with IRL bullshit. That said, there are many groups that do, that don't need naming, that are perfectly capable.
Its even possible to find people who don't post real names, but post pics, and post real names, or re-use handles that have real names and pics, or other identifying information elsehwere.
"And, like I said, if you have an alternative that doesn't require a real name, I'm open to it." My alternative is very simple. Its not to censor the internet, and let either the government, corporations, or any other large buerocratic groups become the bullies.
"He simply argued we shouldn't give any fuck about people who suffer from cyberbullying," I'm not saying we should not care, but your idea is so fucking overboard it does more harm than good, and it opens people up to cyberbullying. Real names make people easier targets.
The problem of "cyberbullying" is vastly overblown. The alarm is a thinly veiled attempt to censor the internet.
"to find out which 'liz caulkins' is you. In fact, it'd take me about 15 min to find YOU,"
This is the same forum that, when they want to help me find jobs, keep searching for things hundreds of miles away from me.
"Its not to censor the internet, and let either the government, corporations, or any other large buerocratic groups become the bullies."
So basically, your solution is to do nothing at all. Which of course is not a solution, which means we still need to do my solution.
Yeah, that's pretty typical really. You bitch about a solution you don't like, but when pressed, you admit you can't actually suggest anything better. Well, sorry, it's your job to come up with a better idea if you don't like the current one.
"I'm not saying we should not care,"
Indeed you are, since you just said we should do nothing and let it continue to be a growing problem.
"The problem of 'cyberbullying' is vastly overblown."
Nope. It's actually a huge problem and growing, as studies keep showing over and over again. When you consider that there's 350 million people in the US, and that bullying of all kinds has always been a significant occurrence, it's hard to argue that something that logically is going to affect millions of people is "overblown".
"This is the same forum that, when they want to help me find jobs, keep searching for things hundreds of miles away from me." yeah, when they need to do something FOR you they flake out. Great system right.
"So basically, your solution is to do nothing at all. Which of course is not a solution, which means we still need to do my solution." My solution is to not make the situation any worse. If you can find a solution to cyber bullying that doesn't make everyone a target beau
"Indeed you are, since you just said we should do nothing and let it continue to be a growing problem." Online freedoms, and lack of privacy is the growing problem. Internet bullying is not.
These are people fighting for freedom and democracy world wide. These are people taking up big issues stateside, be it poverty, the war on drugs, police brutality, etc....
We the internet are working hard to make sure their collective voices don't get silenced. We are also working hard to make sure they are properly represented, and give grass roots activists the upper hand.
This is only done with things like net neutrality, and an unpoliced internet. Anything else tips the balance of power to a centralized source which determines who can and cannot be an activist, threatening the ability of the lowest individual, making protesting available to the least connected people.
We are closing one digital divide, we need not another.
It kind of stands to intelligence and logic that as the internet becomes more and more ubiquitous, and more and more kids interact on it, cyberbullying will become more and more of a problem. Since bullying itself certainly hasn't reduced any, so of course the bullies will happily just switch to the newest platform for it. Especially since it's currently harder for them to get punished as a result, so they can get away with it more.
"These are people fighting for freedom and democracy world wide. These are people taking up big issues stateside, be it poverty, the war on drugs, police brutality, etc...."
And the ones in the US currently mainly do it with no reprisals, so long as they stick to legal venues. And those people who do get bullied would benefit greatly from laws which made it easier to find and punish cyberbullies.
"We are also working hard to make sure they are properly represented,"
But you don't give a shit about bullied victims getting properly represented. I guess you only deserve protection if you're being political; everyone else can fuck off and enjoy being harassed and bullied, amirite?
"Mainly because they're not genuinely interested in helping, just in trying to discredit me." is that paranoia I smell?
Or mabey that services generally work better when they are being used against me. proving my point.'
"It kind of stands to intelligence and logic that as the internet becomes more and more ubiquitous, and more and more kids interact on it, " Oh think of the children, next up, we;ll have some links from "focus on the family" as some unbiased proof of childhood bullying.
" And those people who do get bullied would benefit greatly from laws which made it easier to find and punish cyberbullies."
As long as they fit the description of being bullied, and the government feels like, or can do something about it, and its not used for alterior means.
Where would I get that concept.
How about, when the government finally wins or makes significant progress the war on poverty, the war on crime, the war on drugs, or the war on terrorism, they can talk about the war on bullying, and giving up more essential liberties for some nutcases misconceptions about the internet and how to police it.
Making the statement that one could make a legitimate argument that people should be held accountable for acting like jerkasses and assholes, by tying them to a single name that it's harder to dodge responsibility from.
The rest goes too far, though. Unless you have an incredibly unique name, it's going to be difficult to pin down your name to just one person in a country or even a single state/parish/whatever, but obviously having to give an address or IP removes that protection. There's a difference between accountability and being forced to invite people to your house.
You are trying to create a distinction that does not exist. Moreover, forcing people to reveal their real identities to engage in any sort of discourse or expression is against the spirit, and - according to various and sundry court rulings - the letter of the Constitution.
As in, if you say/do nasty shit that harms people, you actually get proportional punishment/requirements for restitution. Rather than getting away scot-free or with a slap on the wrist while the person you harmed suffers all the effects.
And, the same steps that are taken now; if you feel like you're being unnecessarily censored, you file a suit about how that violates our laws protecting against censorship. There's plenty of organizations willing to help out with that.
"As in, if you say/do nasty shit that harms people, you actually get proportional punishment/requirements for restitution." So like everytime you call someone a retard, or does that only apply to other people?
also, your have to going to define "harm", because physically hurting people is quite impossible, and the harm only increases the more someone knows about you. If everyone simply had the right to post anonymously, it would not be possible to attack someone. If everyone posted their names, and identifying information, it'd be very easy to attack someone, and take things offline, effectively styming unpopular social and political opinions.
"And, the same steps that are taken now; if you feel like you're being unnecessarily censored, you file a suit about how that violates our laws protecting against censorship" So, if you have the time and money to hire a lawyer, you have freedom of speech. Everyone else gets harrassment from the authorities and their "betters". In fact, using a law suit as a basis for this is tacit acceptence enforcement of social hiearchy informally known as "the ladder"
And you mean kinda how things went 15 years ago. Sorry, I'm not going back to that.
Please mind you, if there was internet in the 1700s, under your laws the federalist papers would have never been published.
Most of the impetus behind this is irrelevant when it comes to death threats specifically, which, as you say, can already be handled regardless of such a law. It's for dealing with hurtful and threatening behavior towards people with fewer resources to protect themselves.
Pish posh. This isn't about that at all. This appears to be about your desire to trim liberty to suit your personal tastes.
Weak and strong, important and insignificant - all Americans are, in concept, protected by (and subject to) the law. There are already mechanisms in place to provide redress for people who find themselves victims of serious threats or harassment on the internet. If the system does not work properly, that is an indication it should be fixed - not that everyone else ought to be made less free.