Skip to comments.Anonymity and the Dark Side of the Internet
Posted on 01/04/2011 7:32:09 AM PST by Weird Tolkienish Figure
In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) the Supreme Court overturned a statute requiring any person who prints a notice or flyer promoting a candidate or an issue to identify the communications author by name. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, grounded his opinion in an account of meaning he takes from an earlier case (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti): The inherent worth of . . . speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual. Or, in other words, a writing or utterance says what it says independently of who happens to say it; the information conveyed does not vary with the identification of the speaker.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
With all the attacks on the Internet, don’t be surprised if you don’t need a passport to visit in the future.
I think thats what the statist want. A license to get online.
How will the government prosecute when some anonymous person says something bad about Obama? I’m sure the ruling will only go one way.
I know, stupid question.
If you look at the statements they have made, they admit it.
They say that the Internet is the Wild Wild West and they need to bring order to it.
They want to identify people for the purpose of harassment.
This is accurate but incomplete.
A statement has intrinsic meaning, that which is limited strictly to the information contained in the utterance itself.
It has additional meaning when you know the author and can make judgments about his motivations for the speech.
This is easily seen by the various false quotations from Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin, even George Carlin (!) that appear to live forever in cyberspace. They should not have additional credibility from these "authors," as they never said any such things.
Yet that the authorship was inaccurately prescribed does not invalidate any truth that might be contained in the words themselves.
Question posed by the article: “But how, asks Brian Leiter in a powerful essay, is the process of deliberation helped by the anonymous poster who reports falsely that Jane Doe has herpes and announces that he would like to sodomize her?”
Who but a Liberal would accept as truth the line “Jane Doe has herpes” without attribution or verification?
Most importantly, who wants to sodomize someone with herpes?
Brian, your Liberalism, and your acceptance of sexual perverseness, is showing.
Summation: Only a Liberal who is also a sexual pervert desires any form of sex with someone who has herpes.
Liberals are not only against the Constitution, they are walking, talking crimes against Nature.
Yeah, only “qualified journalists” will be able to report or comment on the news. An old idea that journalists refuse to allow to die.
I think during the Clinton admin there was talk of licensing webpages content, to get rid of ‘hate sites’ and such.
That's EXACTLY what they want. A requirement that ISPs facilitate identifying poster identity and remove libelous material on demand (which is what the article's writer wants) will simply result in ISPs deciding that allowing common people to have blogs is too much hassle, resulting in the removal of the ability of regular people to post dynamic content.
We will then be back in the era where only the MSM is able to publish anything, thus giving the Left a monopoly on information transmission.
[ With all the attacks on the Internet, dont be surprised if you dont need a passport to visit in the future. ]
They whine that askign Illegals for documentation in Arizon is a German “Papers Pleeze” moment, but they want to control our own citizens on the internet?????
We should take all that “Paper Pleeze” Rhetoric and throw it all back in their faces over this.
Does that mean I’ll be the only one that won’t have to change their FR name?
[ Wonder how they feel about the Federalist Papers?
I know, stupid question. ]
Yeah, we all know what they think of dissent, anonymous or otherwise.
You are not alone.
BTW: Is "Stuart" your first or your last name?
Excellent. Besides, all knee-jerk, robot-like Leftwingtards are alike in their attitudes towards perversion ~ they know what they like.
DING DING DING
They've already done this with pro-family petition signers.
Exactly. Interesting how the “Protest is Patriotism” crowd changed their tune once Obama got into office.
First, w/middle and last initials
Herpes: the Government’s way of saying ‘I love you.’
Because the guy likes the government, he obviously wants to hear the government whisper its sweet nothings..
‘Course Libtards like the perverse - each of us like that which both appeals to us and, in a larger sense, IS us.
My short opinion of Liberlaism/Liberals - BAH! HUMBUGGERY ! !