Centerfield

Yes. It's a horrible, draconian bill. Taking an elephant gun to swat a gnat.

Anonymity is a crucial component of free speech. Remember that even James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay used a pseudonym to publish The Federalist Papers.

This bill is nothing but people in power trying to protect themselves from criticism by that great unwashed masses.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 7, 2006 09:20 AM

Not only does the bill make us responsible for anonymous postings on this site, but it might also impose liability on our web hosting company, too. Even if, say, we wanted to run the risk of liability, our web host might not be so inclined to such a risk.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 7, 2006 09:24 AM

I'm no First Amendment expert, but it seems unconstitutional to me. At the very least, it sounds overbroad. Not that that has ever stopped legislators from passing bills that play to the passions of the populace. It's the best of both worlds; if you know the court will strike a law down, you can get credit for passing it, blame the court for striking at the heart of democracy and be assured that you haven't completely screwed up the constitutional system. Nice way for legislators to escape responsibility.

Posted by: Marc at March 7, 2006 09:38 AM

Marc, as far as I know, there is no definitive U.S. Supreme Court case finding an absolute right to anonymous speech to be contained within the First Amendment. However, several states have. Here's a good case from Pennsylvania.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 7, 2006 09:51 AM

There is this Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton case (No. 00-1737, June 17, 2002), in which the U.S. Supreme Corut struck down a village ordinance requiring door-to-door pamphleteers and advocates to register with the Village and obtain a permit. The Court voted 8-1 to strike down the ordinance, but there were some concurrences which I have not looked up.

At first glance, the Watchtower case would seem very closely on point to this New Jersey Bill. Both require those who wish to advocate anything to register their name and address prior to speaking; the Watchtower bill with the government, and this bill with the site operator.

The Watchtower case noted that "door to door distribution of circulars is essential to the poorly financed causes of little people." One can surely make the same argument about the internet and blogs.

The Village justified the ordinance on grounds of preventing fraud and protecting the privacy of residents, but the Court found the ordinance much broader than necessary for those purposes. It applied to non-commercial as well as commercial canvassers, and to both religious and political activity as well.

The Court said: "It is offensive — not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society — that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so."

In conclusion, the Court said:

a]s a matter of principle a requirement of registration in order to make a public speech would seem generally incompatible with an exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly.… So long as no more is involved than exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly, it is immune to such a restriction. … [A] requirement that one must register before he undertakes to make a public speech to enlist support for a lawful movement is quite incompatible with the requirements of the First Amendment.

After reading that summary of the opinion, I'm much more optimistic about having this bill, even if it were to pass, tossed out on its ear very quickly.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 7, 2006 10:03 AM

Thanks for your expertise, Pat. I knew you'd have an answer. It kind of hit me square in the face as I was reading the bill what I thought it was capable of doing. At least it should face massive opposition from all sides of the political spectrum. I'm sure Kos and the like wouldn't like it anymore than the Redstate folks.

Posted by: AR at March 7, 2006 10:45 AM

NJ ought to retitle this "Internet Service Provider Reduction Act." If you want to drive out ISP's and web hosting from NJ, this will be a great way to do it. Not only that, if I were a web hosting company outside of NJ, I may decide not to contract with an individual or firm from New Jersery.

Maybe we should just stat calling New Jersey, New China.

Posted by: Jim M at March 7, 2006 11:21 AM

And how, exactly, do they propose that an ISP determine whether a particular on-line ID is a specific person and at what address. If I am on the Internet (say from a public library, I can go to Yahoo and set up an e-mail address which likely is not my first and last name. Especially if I have a relatively common name, one of the others has probably already taken it -- mine is extremely unusual . . . except for two of my cousins, who were also named for our grandfather. And nothing says that the address I give a) is mine, and b) gets changed if I move house.

The trouble with simplistic legislation, written by people who know nothing about the technical aspects of what they are writing about, is that it ends up being unenforceable (or, at least as likely, irrelevant). As in this case.

Posted by: wj at March 7, 2006 11:42 AM

That's part of the perniciousness of the bill, wj... it requires the service provider to "establish, maintain and enforce a policy to require any information content provider who posts ... either to be identified by a legal name and address, or to register a legal name and address with the operator..."

Just taking the guy's word for it when he signs up may not be enough. You may need a procedure to verify it.

But I doubt this will pass.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 7, 2006 12:01 PM

If this legislation were irrevelent/unenforceable, that would not be a problem. The problem is that there might at least be some subset of circumstances under which it would be relevent/enforceable. I live in NJ and am embarrassed by this, not to mention a bit surprised.

Posted by: WHQ at March 7, 2006 12:05 PM

Then write your legislator, WHQ, and tell him to make sure the stupid thing dies. This isn't law yet, only a bill introduced by one member of the legislature.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 7, 2006 12:18 PM

I'm on it.

Posted by: WHQ at March 7, 2006 12:34 PM

Blue Jersey is reporting that this bill's intent has already been ruled unconstitutional by the New Jersey Supreme Court. They also cite a 1960 USSC ruling that they believe is applicable here and which would render this bill's intent a violation of the US constitution as well.

Posted by: Kevin at March 7, 2006 12:43 PM

Kevin, your link needs fixing...

Posted by: PatHMV at March 7, 2006 01:14 PM

Hmmm... let me try that again.

Blue Jersey

Posted by: Kevin at March 7, 2006 01:45 PM

Thanks, Kevin. I think the comments and the interview with the bill sponsor contained in your link make it pretty clear that this bill is not going to go anywhere.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 7, 2006 02:52 PM

And the sponsor is having second thoughts. Not quite enough of them, yet, but it's obvious the blog-world communicated our concerns to him promptly and with emphasis.

Abel, you might want to update your post with this so more people notice it.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 8, 2006 01:38 PM