Having been the victim in the past of more than one person who posted pure bs about me and basically was stalking/harrassing me as well as other things. I understand why this bill happened. It's not the solution, but most of the larger boards don't do anything. Nor do the main email services out there or even the ISP's and frankly if you can't demonstrate that there is a real chance of personal harm law enforcement doesn't care either.
It's great to just say "don't let it bother you" but it can cause problems. Thankfully I've had luck in stopping it but it was not without some personal embarrassment in trying to explain why someone would hate me that much to go as far as one in particular did. One case resulted in me having to file a real complaint with the police, one ended with a simple letter from an attorney.
The problem is some people take things to such an emotional degree from something as simple as a disagreement on a message board and can really mess with someone's real life over it. Take the incident that the Toledo Blade reported a few months ago about the guy who was posting on a sports message board pretending to be a woman. He had already left City Employment but he really pissed someone off so they decided to report them to the City for posting during the day. His name was publicly mentioned not because he did his job poorly or the City had caught him posting during work time but merely because he made someone on a message board mad enough to try to get revenge on. Sure the original responsibilty lies with him for posting during work but it's situations like that and the other ones out there were clearly false and harmful information is being posted about someone that creates laws like this being discussed.
All because people can't be civil...
posted by psyche777 at 12:23 A.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
had caught him posting during work time
Oh Crap....I guess I better wait till the midnight hour from now on before updating my BLOG or commenting on TT. All I need is for my boss to find out (even though I do it on my lunch hour).
Going to make for a long day!
posted by KraZyKat at 12:39 A.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
must...resist...bait...must...resist...bait...
posted by anonymouscoward at 01:30 A.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
It figures that this shit would start in New Jersey-the crookedest state in the union, and also the one with the most bullshit laws. New Jersey was the state that tried to ban smoking in your car-even if you were alone. There's some town there that passed a law making it illegal to smoke anywhere inside or OUTSIDE-including your yard or your porch or sidewalk. I've heard all kinds of horror stories about that place-anyone who continues to live there needs their head examined. The rulers there won't be happy until they've made everybody in the state a criminal. Money to be made that way.
posted by Foolkiller at 03:36 A.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
Most people here seem pretty civil.
The bill is wrong.
posted by jdmsbyrd at 07:32 A.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
It's another attempt to regulate good behavior and common sense because a few people and a few services don't deal with it when it becomes a problem. Most times you can just decide "fine I'll go someplace else". I'll use me as an example, I quit posting where this happened over a year ago. Some people post merely for the entertainment value of messing with other people. That's never going to change. It can cross a line though, when you start to get phone calls, letters and other harrassment (which is a big reason why people should have the right to remain anonymous) it's gone beyond "Mommy he doesn't like me"...
This place is really civil compared to places I've posted in the past ten years I've been on the net. I enjoy that very much, especially since I have to watch my tendency to want to play peacemaker. That helped cause alot of my problems in the past. The typical very few who want to stand up to a bully even a cyber bully.
Really though the main reason people are against this isn't because of the civility factor it's because it's being promoted as a free speech issue. All the bill wanted was for forums to demand a legal name and address be on file for that person before they used the forum. So that if a complaint was filed it made it easier for the "victim" to do something about it.
This has been blogged about and hence? They got alot of email against it because as usual very few people had read the actual bill...
If you write a letter to the editor of a newspaper you have to give them your contact information even if you prefer to be listed anonymousily they have to have that or? They don't print your "free speech" 99.9% of the time. If you want to comment on a livejournal blog you have to have a livejournal account. Same with Xanga, same with myspace.
Yet this is being heralded as being against free speech. It's not...unless you own the particular board you are the guest of whoever hosts and and has to follow whatever rules they create. If JR decides tomorrow that he hates my guts and he wants to ban me from being able to post here? He hasn't violated my free speech. Now the reason I think it's silly is if message board owners don't want to demand people have to give "Legal names and/or legal addresses" that should be their choice. We as users then have the choice if we want to give that information to be able to participate.
posted by psyche777 at 08:49 A.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
Ayn Rand has her uses:
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
I agree with FK. The more laws you pass, the less justice results. If you pass enough laws, you make everyone a criminal.
Blogs are not a problem except for their power to expose, embarrass or annoy politicians. To me, this is not a malfunction, but evidence of smooth operation.
The liberties of speech, expression and the press are not neat and tidy. They are messy and fraught with consternation. Those are the ways they should be.
posted by GuestZero at 10:27 A.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
This wasn't a result of blogs, it was because of message board type forums. The blogs came into it because they started writing about this being a freedom of speech issue, brought upon by one of the founders of the original forums where this was a problem writing about it on his blog.
Nor was it because of politcians not being able to take the heat, it was personal silliness that went above and beyond what was necessary. Either walking away or the whole community deciding that wasn't how they wanted to be would have ended it. If you know it's a free for all and you still participate? Maybe the solution for some of them would have been to not participate rather than to ask for new laws. Sometimes the internet isn't a very nice place and for some the mere ability to be anonymous makes them alot nastier than they might be if they were known.
This isn't the way to solve it, but that's why it became an issue.
posted by psyche777 at 11:03 A.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
Bloggers have control over what is posted to their blogs and what I find ironic is some of those very bloggers that demand "free speech" moderate comments, require comments to be pre-approved and/or don't allow anonymous comments on their blogs.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 11:06 A.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
Very true, psyche777.
I agree that new laws are all but useless. When you run into a situation such as psyche777 described, existing harassment/stalking/menacing laws are sufficient.
The other side of the coin - if you worry about this sort of situation, maintain complete anonymity. The minute you expose your true identity (or give away enough clues) is when morons can start screwing with you.
I have been through several harassment/threat situations myself, and while they are unpleasant, most times it's just a lone kook that will back off when you raise the ante and bring in the law.
Most times...
The best rule, though - avoid flame wars. When things get really heated, it's better to walk away than risk provoking some unknown poster. There are people who just cannot let go an argument, and feel they have to win at ANY cost.
posted by historymike at 12:26 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
Related high-profile story on a cyber-stalker who become real-life harasser.
posted by historymike at 12:35 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
Here's the problem with the forum that is at the heart of this in NJ, directly from the Terms of Service that everyone has to agree to before they can post:
You agree not to use any obscene, indecent, or offensive language or to place on the Service any material that is defamatory, abusive, harassing, or hateful. Further, you may not place on the Service any material that is encrypted, constitutes junk mail or unauthorized advertising, invades anyone's privacy, or encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or that otherwise violates any local, state, national or international law or regulation. You agree to use the Service only for lawful purposes and you acknowledge that your failure to do so may subject you to civil and criminal liability.
http://www.nj.com/useragreement/
They didn't enforce it, so it created a false expectation on the part of some of those who posted there that behavior that did violate the rules would be dealt with. This policy hasn't been changed since 2002 so the above requirement isn't something that's been added since as a response to the proposed legislation.
I realize it's really popular to try to claim everything is a free speech issue, but given the way most forums are set up? There are rules.
posted by psyche777 at 01:35 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
"... and what I find ironic is some of those very bloggers that demand "free speech" moderate comments, require comments to be pre-approved and/or don't allow anonymous comments on their blogs."
I don't see any irony in that all. Remember, it's their blog, so it's their decision. The blog owner or the message board owner decides how the site should be managed not some law.
What if a law is created that demands blog owners to allow or disallow commenting? What if a law is created that demands blog owners provide more than one side to every issue? Those wouldn't be good either. The decisions should be left up to the site owner not government.
And I don't buy this NJ politician's alleged intentions with this law. It's not about bringing civility to message boards. This proposed law is the beginning point for something bigger.
It's just like with any ban on a specific behavior or right. You start at the bottom, banning or enforcing something easy that hardly anyone objects to. I mean, let's face it, most people probably want civility on the Internet.
These lawmakers use an incremental strategy. First, the easily acceptable law is passed. But the next law adds to the first by banning or enforcing another behavior. Then another law comes out on top of that. And so on.
And this very idea of Internet civility is open to massive interpetations. Other states or cities could implement their own versions of this law with different meanings.
Maybe it's been deemed uncivil to criticize a politician even though the post is factual. Maybe the government police won't allow people to post who don't vote. Afterall, by giving name and address info, someone could check your voting record. That could be part of the next incremental version of the law.
Maybe it's uncivil for a person of one political party to factually and intelligently criticize someone from another political party. Who defines Internet civility on message boards and blogs? Who says Ohio's version would contain the exact same wording as New Jersey's even though it too would be called the Internet Civility law?
Republicans could interpret the law to say the DailyKos is uncivil. Democrats could interpet the law to say the Power Line is uncivil. Just about anything that politicians don't like could be banned in the name of Internet civility.
This NJ law may get defeated, but that won't be the end of it. It will pop up in a different place of the country in a slightly different form and with a different name but with the same long-term intentions.
posted by jr at 01:40 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
Well I'm new to all of this - but how can the stalker find out who you are? Unless you'd tell them?
posted by katie82640 at 02:16 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
Jr, if you are out there as a blogger demanding that people should have the right to post anonymousily and be able to say whatever they want on the internet then on your own blog you don't allow comments or moderate comments? I see irony in that. Especially if they are claiming this is some right of free speech on a forum that is not owned or operated by them.
I'm not trying to say I agree with the bill, I was merely giving some background information as to why it happened and what the real solution might be. Which to me is "if there are forum rules follow them" for posters and for forum owners "If you create rules enforce them". If you are a poster and you discover that the rules aren't enforced and you feel you are being treated unfairly? Then don't post there anymore. If it goes too far? Report it to the legal authorities.
It's really that simple. Or at least should be.
Katie it's alot easier than you'd think. Something as simple as developing an e-friendship with someone who slips and posts something. Posting something that happened that can be searchable as to clues, searching for email addresses, web domain hosting information, there are services out there where you can buy personal information on people. Once before I realized how nasty some people could be I posted about one of my daughters winning an award. All they had to do was search that award and voila...they had my real last name. I'm not anonymous but I also make sure my phone number isn't listed anymore as well being very careful that the only people that know my physical address can be trusted with it.
posted by psyche777 at 02:40 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
Quick experiment:
1. Katie82640 is a mom with at least 2 boys.
2.Katie82640 self-describes as a traditional Christian."
3. Katie82640 goes to Dr. Dwight Bryan on Monclova Rd.
4. Katie82640 works in financial services.
Creepy, isn't it?
That took me 90 seconds using only Toledo Talk posts.
(Note - this demonstration was for the purposes of illustration. historymike does not condone cyber-stalking, and believes cyber-stalkers are a special kind of sick SOB).
Add to that the possibility of exchanging emails. Once someone has your email they can get the full header and find out your IP number, then use your IP to find account information (like where you live or work).
Like I said, I have had quite a few dealings with some twisted people. One person who was mad at me phoned my employer and told them I was posting pornography from computers at my place of employment. He snagged my IP address and figured out one of my employers, and decided to screw with me just as a payback over an Internet argument.
Luckily, I use my own laptop for all my work, and I am not into porn, so it was easy to disprove.
But it WAS annoying and a bit disturbing that some random idiot could do something so sick.
posted by historymike at 02:47 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
"Jr, if you are out there as a blogger demanding that people should have the right to post anonymousily and be able to say whatever they want on the internet then on your own blog you don't allow comments or moderate comments? I see irony in that. Especially if they are claiming this is some right of free speech on a forum that is not owned or operated by them."
I don't understand why you see something wrong with bloggers claiming free speech violations over the NJ bill when the bloggers don't allow commenting on their own site.
Maybe these bloggers have more than one blog, or maybe they plan to start another blog some day that will allow commenting. Maybe these bloggers, like myself, are thinking of the future and not just of the present moment and not just NJ's bill.
And why are you only focused on comments? Today, it's comments on a message board. But tomorrow, psyche777, it could be your postings to your blog. That's why bloggers who don't allow comments are upset with the NJ bill because you can have so-called uncivil blog postings too, right? No real difference exists between a blog posting, a message board posting, and a comment. It's still content. It can all be civil or uncivil.
Again, think of the government's incremental strategy. Their long-term goal could be to go after the owners of personal blog sites.
posted by jr at 03:48 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
Katie82640 said...
Well I'm new to all of this - but how can the stalker find out who you are?
..and Katie, just a stab in the dark but you may have been born on August 26, 1940
posted by KraZyKat at 04:06 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
Okay maybe I'm really failing at making my point.
If a blogger does not allow anonymous comments or moderates comments because they have made the decision that's how they want it on their own blog then who are they to demand that other forums not have the same right to determine what rules they want posters to follow? If they are demanding everyone have this mythical free speech that really doesn't exist because as we all know it's up to each blogger or forum owner to determine how they want to set their own rules and don't practice it themselves it is to me ironic and slightly hypocritical. It's as if they were saying "Let me write whatever the hell I want to write on 'your' forum and don't you dare try to stop me, yet I on the other hand can decide you cannot post on my part of the internet".
That was really just a side issue I found to be ironic in this whole debate of trying to create a huge issue out of a law that is being misinterpreted as making some huge impact on free speech. I don't support creating a law to demand forum owners to collect personal information so that it is easier for a "victim" to take legal action. I think the actual forum owners and the posters are able to deal with that under the present law.
It is not demanding that people have to use their real names or addresses on these forums but that the forum owners have to collect them as a requirement of participation and if there is a complaint provide that information. At least that's the way I understood the bill when I read the whole bill. As I pointed out, some sites already require that you do this to be able to participate. Some go as far as to not allow a "free" email service to be used to sign up. I think this is a matter where the net can self-police or use the laws currently on the books to deal with it. But...that doesn't mean I agree that this is a free speech issue because to me it has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with the government interfering in how a forum operator decides he or she wants to run their own forum. That I don't agree with, as there are already basic laws on the books that would apply in most situations.
posted by psyche777 at 04:19 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
Now you know why AnonymousCoward is AnonymousCoward.
posted by anonymouscoward at 06:05 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
There are some advantages to being anonymous AC but then there are things that I've been able to do that I wouldn't be doing if I were anonymous, like the interviews I've done and even things like live blogging the Commissioner's debate. I don't regret my decision to not be anonymous, I do regret some choices I made as far as who to trust. But? You live and learn.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 06:15 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
For me I have the benefit of bringing my writing to a wider audience by eschewing anonymity. I have had work published in national periodicals that only came about because I have a website.
I have also been able to build a wider network of contacts, sources, and fellow writers by choosing to maintain a public presence. The occasional kook who stirs up trouble is a small price to pay for the opportunities I have gained, and - frankly - I might have avoided some situations if I had just ignored the nonsense of certain people.
posted by historymike at 06:29 P.M. EST on Wed Mar 15, 2006 #
On my blog, I have verification turned on and do not welcome anonymous postings; too much noise for too little signal otherwise.
I realize that limits the number of responses, but they are all worth reading this way.
Personal preference in lieu of numbers...
;-)
posted by Hooda_Thunkit at 06:20 P.M. EST on Fri Mar 17, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
