Internet Posting Removal Act

The first comment there (by Leslie Wheeler) summarizes the ridiculousness nicely:

"We may have an early candidate for Worst Illinois Senate Bill of 2013.

First of all, Illinois does not have jurisdiction over the entirety of the internet. Illinois has jurisdiction over Illinois. Geographical location isn't all that important to the web hosting industry - for the most part, a datacenter in Chicago is just as good as one in, say, Dallas or Seattle. This means that the only thing this bill would actually succeed in doing is driving internet-related business (both individual online businesses, as well as the infrastructure that supports them, ie, webhosting companies and datacenters) out of the state.

Good job representing our interests there, Ira.

More importantly, though, this is plainly unconstitutional. It's absolutely embarrassing that any elected representative of US citizens would suggest that there should be a host of state-defined rules that must be met before one is allowed to exercise their first amendment right to free speech.

Just for funsies, here's what SCOTUS thought of anonymous speech in McIntyre V. Ohio Elections Commission:

'Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views... Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation... at the hand of an intolerant society.'"

Much as state senator Ira Silverstein would like to use his weirdly gerrymandered little slice of Chicago as a platform from which to repeal the First Amendment, I don't think we have to worry much that'll be successful doing so.

A quote: "Creates the Internet Posting Removal Act. Provides that a web site administrator shall, upon request, remove any posted comments posted by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate."

This has all sorts of constitutional-law and privacy ramifications. Anonymous public comment has a long history in political debate, and a law such as the link describes is a likely candidate for legal challenge.

This is not to argue tat anonymous comment isn't controversial -- it is -- but it's not a simple issue by any means.

Most of those who propose measures to limit anonymous comment try to clearly define the scope of their intentions -- for example, it might only apply to misstatements of fact, or potentially libelous remarks. This one simply makes it a requirement that comments be removed on request -- and it doesn't describe the standing of the requester or the basis of the request. I can hear the lawyers now -- "Your honor, this statute is overly broad and ambiguous."

Full Text of the Bill:

http://legiscan.com/IL/text/SB1614

Choice quotes:

"Anonymous poster" means any individual who posts a message on a web site including social networks, blogs, forums, message boards, or any other discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.

"Web site administrator" means any person or entity that is responsible for maintaining a web site or managing the content or development of information provided on a web site including social networks, blogs, forums, message boards, or any other discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages accessible via a network such as the Internet or a private local area network.

Anonymous speech must be stopped! Because we all know how our country was almost ruined by those pseudonymous bastards, Ms. Silence Dogood and Poor Richard Saunders[1].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_franklin

Perhaps the text of bills should carry the names of the individuals who actually wrote them as well.

"Upon request."

By anyone, it seems to read. Even by an anonymous requester.

Now anyone can be a censor.

In case you're wondering why this bill is unconstitutional, the EFF provides a good summary of the underlying issues and how the Supreme Court has ruled in the past:

https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

You'd think legislators would have read the Constitution before taking office, but yeah, I know I'm asking too much...

In other news, it's being reported[1] that State Farm Insurance, headquartered in Bloomington, IL and employing lots of people in southern Illinois, has acquired several million feet of office space in Dallas.

I would say the Illinois legislature needs to fix their credit rating (lowest in the nation) before they try to outlaw internet nastygrams. They are equally as stupid and more evil than their neighbors in Indiana were in 1897, when they decided the value of PI was 3.2[2].

How is it dummies manage to land in legislatures, especially state legislatures, so often?

[1]http://activerain.com/blogsview/3622523/dallas-s-largest-off... [2]http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localgov/second%20level%20p...

The Founding Fathers commented anonymously!

http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?i...

I've lost track of the number proposed Internet laws that were obviously written by legislators lacking even a working understanding of what the Internet is or how it works.

The full text of the bill makes clear that this should apply to private networks as well:

"...via a network such as the Internet or a private local area network."

My guess is that the Senator got tired of people posting critical comments of him anonymously.

Aaand, I have one less reason to ever start a company in Illinois.

Yeah, 84.38.212.89 (or whatever coffee shop I'm posting from) is my correct IP address. I guarantee it. o_O