Biondi Wants to Ban Anonymous Online Speech

Don't worry. (4.00 / 1)

This bill will never make it to a vote, let alone be enacted.  Even if it somehow were, Gov. Corzine would surely veto it.  And if by some incredibly remote chance the bill became law, the courts would instantly enjoin it.

That being said, Biondi is still an utter piece of dog droppings (self-censored) for sponsoring such a blatantly unconstitutional, un-American bill. 

---

by: lonemorriscodem @ Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 19:15:09 PM CST

Umm, might wanna look at what provoked this. (0.00 / 0)

If this is, as I suspect, a response to the Provenzano issue, it makes a lot more sense.

Look, I understand how dirty politics can get, and certainly the Republican party has taken the moral low ground (and lowered it) for the past few years. Even a lot of Republicans are ashamed by the behavior of their leadership.

But it doesn't mean that Democrats should attempt to lower the bar any further. The Democratic party has stood for the moral high ground for decades.  The use of anonymous internet smears (in this case, for the 2007 Somerset Sheriffs campaign)is almost as reprehensible as the smears against Kerry's war record in the 2004 election. 

If this extreme partisanship on both sides continues (and there is no indication that it is abating) it will threaten the general welfare of New Jersey and the nation. It just takes one look at Congress's record to see how bad it can get.

Something needs to be done. I agree this law isn't it, but I am at a loss as to what an appropriate law might be.

In the meantime, however, responsible members of both parties should at least condemn such behaviour. It is certainly in both parties interests.

---

by: randyjg2 @ Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 03:45:36 AM CST

provokation (0.00 / 0)

From the Asbury Park Press:

The assemblyman admitted that his purpose in proposing the legislation isn't completely altruistic. He said that he has been the subject of some nasty posts in the past.

"You can disagree, but you don't have to be disrespectful, you don't have to be disagreeable," he said. "The anonymity, in my opinion, allows them to take liberties that they wouldn't do if their name was there.
....
Biondi said he's certain his bill will come under attack by civil libertarians. But he remains undaunted.

"I think it will make the entire Internet more civil," he said. "Why should you put something up you're not proud of, or you don't believe in, or is a lie?"

The bill is currently before the Assembly's Telecommunications and Utilities Committee. Biondi said he has not yet spoken to his colleagues about it, and has no co-sponsors."

---

by: Juan Melli @ Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 07:06:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

More (0.00 / 0)

What irks Biondi, a top Republican in the state assembly, is the political free-for-all that has grown around the New Jersey Star-Ledger's discussion site at NJ.com. The site's forum for Somerset County--that is, Biondi's home district--is home to a slew of pseudonymous posts that tend to be less than kind to local politicians.

When news reports revealed that Somerset County Sheriff Frank Provenzano appropriated more than $5,000 from a petty cash account to pay for his dry cleaning, the NJ.com posts were not flattering. One message from "nodoubletalk" called Provenzano a "thief, plain and simple," while one from "xyzzy" quipped: "That's what we get for voting Republican."
Peter Biondi Peter Biondi

Another local flap involved Stephen Obal, the Bridgewater, N.J. police chief criticized for spending two hours a day at the department's gym when he should have been at work. On NJ.com, "frenchtoast2" called Obal and the mayor "masters of deception, partners in corruption."

Others on NJ.com have taken potshots at Biondi himself, chafing at what "glennvl" labeled the assemblyman's "arrogance."

Those remarks violate Biondi's sense of political propriety. "What it's turned into is people just bashing each other, name-calling, personal issues, that kind of thing," Biondi's chief of staff, Scott Ross, told me on Friday. "It's all anonymous. Nobody knows who's calling who what."

---

by: Juan Melli @ Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 07:15:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Forgot (0.00 / 0)

That's from CNET News

---

by: Juan Melli @ Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 07:15:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Okay, so it's anonymous (0.00 / 0)

So someone called him a name anonymously and he doesn't like it.  What possible purpose would it serve for him to know that person's name except to be able to punish that person somehow or, if his anti-freedom legislation were to pass, to attempt to intimidate people from using their legally protected speech.  I am within my rights to say that Biondi is a boneheaded twit for proposing such legislation and probably as corrupt as any other Republican in that sewer of corruption known as the GOP.  That's called freedom, Biondi.  It isn't just for politicians.

And if Biondi wants to know my name, I'll gladly let him have it.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 09:00:27 AM CST

Biondi is a douche (0.00 / 0)

anonymous

Media In Trouble

---

by: Media In Trouble @ Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 09:30:23 AM CST

Doh! (0.00 / 0)

Forgot about that automatic signature.

Media In Trouble

---

by: Media In Trouble @ Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 09:30:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

who voted for this guy???? (0.00 / 0)

Give yerself a pat on the back--This guy's an IDIOT!!!
What is he trying to hide????
Check-Out (here), the SOUTH~JERSEY online grape~vine, ok?
we've been posting annon. since '98, and I have a feeling that this kind of legislative bs won't stop us!

Greetings from South Jersey!

---

by: talkonline @ Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 13:14:21 PM CST

Too old, I guess. (0.00 / 0)

*sigh* I remember a time when the Democratic party stood for ideals. Granted, no two members stood for the exact same set of ideals, or often even a common subset, but there was a sense that  they were fighting the good fight, trying to make the world a better place.

Now the major issue is $100/month dry cleaning bills or an extra hour in the gym? Ignoring how incredibly pathetic and petty that is, the fact of the matter is what does it say about the party, that it is in favor of out of condition slobs with dirty clothes for sheriff? Is that the sort of argument you expect to win voters with?

What it does say is that the party doesn't take the responsibilities of law enforcement seriously. These are law enforcement officers, who are expected to risk their lives for citizens, without asking who they voted for first. Even if you oppose them politically, everyone still should treat them with respect.

I dunno, I guess I am just too old and out of touch. I still think politics is the art of compromise and debate, not deception, cowardics and lies.

---

by: randyjg2 @ Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 16:31:01 PM CST

I have to agree with you (0.00 / 0)

You are too old and out of touch. So much so that you talked about dry cleaning bills instead of the free speech issues addressed in this post. But thanks for trying to change the topic.

If you want to talk about wasteful spending of our tax dollars, you can write your own diary on it, and we can all discuss it there. I'd be happy to do that, but next time, try to stay on topic. Thanks.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 16:54:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I see your point, but... (0.00 / 0)

jmelli is right in that you are on a separate topic.  I do understand what you are saying, and it goes to the heart of why people think the Democrats have no message.  However, this is not the thread for that disussion and I think it would repay the effort for you to post a diary on this site on that subject.

(But I don't think jmelli should have been so snippy with that "old and out of touch" business.  I hope that doesn't discourage you from continuing to post and comment here.)

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 07:49:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not off topic. (0.00 / 0)

Actually, no, it wasn't off topic. I will make one more comment, then shut up. It's not my blog, and I respect that.

The topic was Biondi's bill. Free speech was only one of the issues. For progressives, theres a more important issue than free speech with this bill. It sends a message that needs answering.

Look, as a progressive, you automatically reject the idea's behind the bill, as you should. When the voters the progressives need to reach see the bill, all they see is the silly complaints behind it...dry cleaning, etc.

Ostensibly by progressives too childish to acknowlege their actions by signing their name. Thats important if you are trying to reach the undecided voters because it is negative only on the progressive side. The conservatives are acting like adults from the undecided voters point of view.

The proper response to Biondi's bill in the blogs would have been an adult one, something like:

"Look, Mr Biondi, we know you are frustrated, and we progressives also comdemn those anonymous accusers. But this isn't the proper way to handle it. We would like to reach out and engage in a bipartisan debate over what might actually work."

In other words, an adult response, not the
"Mr Biondi, you are a do-do head" responses that have shown up.

If you want to actually start winning elections and converting more people to your point of view, something like this is going to be necessary. You can't out nasty the Republicans, they are better at it than you are.

That was what I was trying to say in the post. I apologize if it wasn't clear. 

---

by: randyjg2 @ Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 11:58:24 AM CST

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

I appreciate you not being too discouraged by my previous remarks, which as DBK noted I admit were out of line.

To be honest, when I wrote about this initially, I had no idea anything had or was being said about Mr. Biondi, so I had no reason to even mention it. If anything, him bringing up this bill is only fueling the fire and making his situation worse.

The fact remains that this is not about the silly complaints. A few months ago we exposed a right-wing NJ blog for anonymously posting smears about Jon Corzine - which were also repeated on these same nj.com message boards, plus on NJ 101.5 radio, Drudge Report, etc. It goes both ways. These types of things happen at every level of politics, but we haven't demanded that all anonymous speech be banned because of some bad apples.

The benefits of anonymous free speech far outweigh the possible harm it can inflict. Thomas Paine wouldn't have been able to publish Common Sense, nor would we have the Federalist Papers had it not been for anonymous speech. In that sense, it's a founding principle of this country, and to introduce a bill against that principle, in my opinion, deserves some degree of mockery.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 12:23:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

anonymous false statements (0.00 / 0)

Isn't it ironic that a politician would attempt legislation holding people accountable for lying?
If they were held to such a standard themselves, the perceived need for this type legislation would never have materialized!

---

by: java4u @ Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 13:04:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Opinion: A waste of constituent's time? (0.00 / 0)

I can understand anyone getting upset once they've been trashed under the veil of anonymity. However, as all other  elected officials have, Mr. Biondi asked for his position. (Isn't that what candidates do in a campaign - ask for their jobs)? If he, or anyone else in elective office, is naieve enough to believe he could assume that position without subjecting himself at least to the potential for "name-calling" perhaps he's in over his head.

He's taking a stab at achieving civility.  In this instance, it's arguable that he appears to be using his office more to protect himself and his interests than those of his constituents. That's not why he was elected to office. The mere fact that time was spent drafting a bill rather than working for his constituents strengthens the argument.

Some old saying about "sticks and stones" comes to mind.

OTOH, when questioned about the anonymous claims, he can always retort "Consider the source."

I see his bill as a move by someone exasperated and throwing a bit of a tantrum. While he may be upset, he has no power to usurp rights granted under the Constitution. (And if he doesn't know that, then he's definitely "in over his head.")

The "o".

---

by: opinionator @ Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 14:14:11 PM CST

This law is NOT a ban on anonymous online speech (0.00 / 0)

Why are people calling this a "ban on anonymous speech?"  ISPs and fora are still free to let people speak anonymously; all that happens here is that if one of the anonymous speakers abuses the privilege, the ISP or forum operator is held responsible.  Whatever happened to taking responsibility?  Obviously, forum operators don't seem to have faith that the privilege they extend to their users won't be abused, which means they acknowledge the problem exists.

The reason there is a need for this law is that allowing anonymous defamation makes it too difficult, if not impossible, for those who are defamed to seek redress, even if they go through the proper channels.  I have had ISPs tell me that they couldn't locate their users even when I served them with a subpoena *seven days* after a posting from a static IP address.  I did everyting I was supposed to do, but it didn't help.  In other cases, such as with anonymous remailers, it's impossible to trace the poster at all, yet the posting itself might wind up in Google, who then will try to claim immunity based on 47 USC §230. 

Let's also not forget one thing: ****defamation is not free speech,**** and it is possible to let people speak anonymously if the forum operator moderates the postings for potentially defamatory content.  That way, whistleblowers can still speak out on issues; what they can't do is just ambush people from behind a monitor, and that is as it should be.

ISPs have been incredibly arrogant ever since 47 USC §230 became law.  They don't terminate user accounts even when it's clear the user is violating their TOS policies, and they smugly advise users to "go to court," yet when a user actually does this, they still resent that someone is trying to get justice and often do not comply.  This bill is a much-needed wakeup call.  If you run a blog or a forum, or an ISP, you are giving a weapon of harm to your users, and if that weapon harms people, where you could have prevented it, then you are as responsible for the harm as the "anonymous cockroach" who inflicted it with your tools.

---

by: RayGordon @ Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 01:54:05 AM CST

thanks (0.00 / 0)

Thanks - this is great information. As the operator of the site, I'm curious what you suggest the process is for me to collect and validate the information of all our users. Then, I'd like to hear your suggestions for how we should pay it. Should we charge each user a fee so that we can investigate their identity? What if we have international users? Should we trust them if they tell us that they live out of the country or should we investigate them, too? Please suggest exactly how we should do this. Also, you can begin helping us by sending us a scan of your birth certificate, social security card and utility bill, bank statement or driver's license by email. Thanks for being so helpful.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 07:14:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Moderation (0.00 / 0)

How could a moderator possibly determine the veracity of statements being made? True statements can not be held as defamatory. This would result in action against true statements as well as false if perceived as defamatory. In the end this would certainly deprive the public from disclosures of fact and the only benefit would accrue to lawyers. If you think you are so famous that you can be defamed, you probably are in need of an ego busting anyway. It's also a lot cheaper to defend yourself by presenting the facts in a forum than in a courtroom.

---

by: java4u @ Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 07:46:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What Juan says... (0.00 / 0)

As a webmaster myself, I can assure you that the workload involved(and time is indeed money) would be stupifying and ridiculous. The retrieval of records, with most modern software packages, as presently designed, would be more than a little hard. The law would also have a terrible effect on the participation of people in public discourse, people already more than a little skittish about their privacy.

Now, for nuts, cranks, gossips and idiots, this would not affect them one scintilla. They will just bull themselves on their merry way, posting whatever slur that comes to their fevered minds as truth for all to see.

Whatever Mr. Biondi's motivations are, I predict they are self-serving and malign. Either he or someone he supported had someting posted about them they did not like and now he is gonna make people PAY. One should not legislate in anger. It makes for bad laws.

We need more politicians, in NJ(especially at the state level), who have two braincells to rub together.


The nom de plume has a long and distinguished history.

---

by: Tandalayo Scheisskopf @ Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 08:57:32 AM CST