Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It does not say "free speech only by the fully identified and certified".
And I could give a rip if anyone, politician or otherwise, can come up with some kind of rationale for his/her desire to abridge speech.
The freedom is clear.
Okay. Let’s also include the same information about the person (or persons) requesting that the anonymous poster’s personal information be published along with their justification for the request.
Oh, and let’s also make the requester responsible for any counteractions (bullying, etc.) that occur to the anonymous poster after the publication of the information.
I mean what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, too. N’est pas?
The “liberals” dont like anyone mocking their PC Dogma and getting away with it.They can enforce their PC Dogma on certain jobs but the freedom of speech on the internet galls them greatly.
People who post “politically incorrect” opinions on their face book accounts, where they can be identified , can be fired from their jobs, like the South Florida Fireman, who gave his opinion on Trayvon Martin.
This is just an effort to squelch political speech through out the internet that the “liberal” powers that be dont approve of.
To idiot liberals:
Anonymous posters = Bad
Anonymous POTUS = Good
I miss that little Weiner. Those were some great threads!
So asking someone for ID when they vote is unConstitutional discrimination.
But posting a snarky comment and we want to know who you are!
Sadly this will probably pass and the guy pushing it will probably be re-elected.
Another day in Obamaland.
The true purpose of the act is to suppress political dissent by having the ability to retaliate against the dissenters.
If this new law is approved, will we then also have the LEGAL RIGHT to proclaim that we MISSPOKE, absolving us of any and all legal claims, like JACKSON, SHARPTON, the MSM, and all our politicians have?
So web sites have to have more verification than voter registrars?
How can interstate or international communications be subject to state regulation? Something seems amiss here, not that I'd want some law like this passed on the federal level either.
I'd appreciate comments on this from the constitutionalists out there.
OK. Pin the tail on the donkey time.
Breaking: Domestic Terrorist Kimberlin Has Conservative Blogger Arrested
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2889107/posts
I don’t know much about the workings of the internet, but couldn’t a website owner block his site from being viewed by an IP address located in New York?
Yet another reason to limit the state legislature to meeting 120 days once every two years.
Keeps the legislators from hanging around long enough to think up this type of horse puckey, and even if they do, they do not have time to pass silly bills before the session ends.
(Yet one more reason Texas’s economy is better than that of New York’s.)
Under the Incorporation Doctrine, this is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Mr. Murray and Mr O'Mara please change your party from RINO to MARXIST!! You are a disgrace to people who are RINOs!!
So how would this be monitored?
We should ask “Publius” to see what he thinks about this !
“Republican State Senators Dean Murray and Thomas O’Mara”
D**n Northeastern Republicans might as well be Democrats....