Following the news of a proposal to ban anonymous internet comments in New York, the Internet Protection Act’s main sponsor is pushing back by alleging critics have “mischaracterized” the proposal’s intentions.
Assemblyman Dean Murray said, “Unfortunately, some opponents of this legislation have mischaracterized this bill in an attempt to have it withdrawn. It has been stated that this legislation would ban all anonymous internet postings in New York. That could not be further from the truth.”
Murray further clarified and said the ban “would only apply to factual concerns, not opinions.”
The Internet Protection Act was set forth on Monday and aims to require website administrators including blogs and message boards to “remove any comments posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post.”
Almost immediately, the proposal was met with a tidal wave of backlash via of course, the Internet, with opponents saying the bill threatens rights secured in the First Amendment.
Murray was once the target of mean cyber-bullies during his re-election campaign in 2010 when an anonymous source alleged Murray had committed acts of violence towards his ex-wife.
In January, the Internet industry was threatened by two controversial anti-piracy bills SOPA and PIPA, sparking rallies and internet blackouts to stop the proposed legislation.
Critics of SOPA and PIPA said the bills would “irrevocably damage the very nature of the internet and by extension.”
(Source: Huffington Post)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
2 Responses
Murray further clarified and said the ban “would only apply to factual concerns, not opinions.”
Not good enough. First of all, the burden would be on the web site management to monitor all content for factual statements that might be challenged, and then to determine whether they were true. Second, although false statements of fact are not generally protected by the first amendment, under Sullivan statements about public figures protected unless the writer knows or ought to know them to be false, or shows that he doesn’t care whether they’re true or false. That determination is hard to make, and the burden of making it would be on the web site management when it should be on the person who feels defamed.
PS if he feels that a particular comment defames him, he can already subpoena the IP address that posted it and try suing the poster.