NJ Bill Would Chill Free Speech Online
A New Jersey State Assemblyman has introduced a bill that would, if it were by some mischance enacted into law, choke off political speech on the Internet. For the text of the bill, see http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A1500/1327_l1.HTM .
Bill A-1327 would require operators of computer services and Internet service providers to keep track of the names and addresses of every person posting messages on their public forums, and to provide this information to anyone who can claim he was damaged by false information published on the site. In other words: No more anonymous postings! (And never mind that the New Jersey Supreme Court has already ruled it unconstitutional to ban anonymous speech online.)
The bill does not define terms like "false or defamatory messages"; it just makes them illegal. So if you set up a blog or a website, you've got to take the name and address of everybody who posts a message on it--greatly increasing your operating costs--and then hand it over to anyone who says he was damaged by a message and wants to sue the writer. If you fail to provide that information, you'll be in hot water, legally.
Does anyone in government anymore take the least trouble to learn the Constitution, let alone abide by it? And we can hardly expect them to understand the Internet, can we?
If A-1327 were to become law (and get a pass from the Supreme Court), the 21st century equivalent of The Federalist Papers would never see the light of day. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay published their columns anonymously in various newspapers; today they'd probably post them on the Web.
These columns played a key role in convincing voters to ratify the Constitution, but without the shield of anonymity, they might not have been written. (The writers would have been accused of having a conflict of interest.) Throughout history, anonymous essays and pamphlets have always played a part in shaping public opinion.
Without that shield, a blogger might think twice about accusing a powerful individual of wrongdoing. Under A-1327, all an aggrieved party has to do is claim he was injured; he doesn't have to prove it. And having made the claim, and gotten the writer's name and address, he'll be free to take action to silence him.
What forms such actions might take, we'd rather not find out.
Bill A-1327 would require operators of computer services and Internet service providers to keep track of the names and addresses of every person posting messages on their public forums, and to provide this information to anyone who can claim he was damaged by false information published on the site. In other words: No more anonymous postings! (And never mind that the New Jersey Supreme Court has already ruled it unconstitutional to ban anonymous speech online.)
The bill does not define terms like "false or defamatory messages"; it just makes them illegal. So if you set up a blog or a website, you've got to take the name and address of everybody who posts a message on it--greatly increasing your operating costs--and then hand it over to anyone who says he was damaged by a message and wants to sue the writer. If you fail to provide that information, you'll be in hot water, legally.
Does anyone in government anymore take the least trouble to learn the Constitution, let alone abide by it? And we can hardly expect them to understand the Internet, can we?
If A-1327 were to become law (and get a pass from the Supreme Court), the 21st century equivalent of The Federalist Papers would never see the light of day. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay published their columns anonymously in various newspapers; today they'd probably post them on the Web.
These columns played a key role in convincing voters to ratify the Constitution, but without the shield of anonymity, they might not have been written. (The writers would have been accused of having a conflict of interest.) Throughout history, anonymous essays and pamphlets have always played a part in shaping public opinion.
Without that shield, a blogger might think twice about accusing a powerful individual of wrongdoing. Under A-1327, all an aggrieved party has to do is claim he was injured; he doesn't have to prove it. And having made the claim, and gotten the writer's name and address, he'll be free to take action to silence him.
What forms such actions might take, we'd rather not find out.
