With all the attacks on the Internet, don’t be surprised if you don’t need a passport to visit in the future.
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.
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?””
Dear Brian,
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.
Does that mean I’ll be the only one that won’t have to change their FR name?