IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
- Feb 18, 2013
- 11,059
- 2,055
I agree with theDoctorisIn.
The bill (Senate version in particular) is very poorly drafted.
I gather that what it hoped to achieve was to remove the veil of anonymity from those who would post hurtful/damaging libelous shit about actual real life persons, such as the kind of cyber bullying of children on some social media that has led to suicides.
If little Sally Rottencrotch were a real life school girl and some anonymous dipshit on FaceBook were to "go after" her by tormenting her in a vile personal manner -- saying libelous things about her -- little Sally might feel miserable and lost. And the anonymous internet cyber-bully might feel emboldened because he has a username to hide behind, secure in the knowledge that his real life identity is going to remain anonymous.
It is pretty clear that the bills proposed in NY were intended to remove the ability to hide behind anonymity in the publication of libelous crap like that. But, because the bills were poorly drafted, their reach could go FAR beyond that.
Here at USMB, for instance, if anonymous member says scurrilous and false shit about some other anonymous username, there is no real world harm. Example: When an asshole like Zona falsely declares that I "welshed" on a bet (that had actually been voided) his lie has no power to injure me, personally, because he's taking his dishonest pot-shots at an anonymous Board username.
Nevertheless, as proposed, the stupid NY legislation might be deemed to have sufficient "reach" to apply to that situation. Such a result is facially ridiculous. At the very least, if the proposed legislation ever rises from the dead again, it needs to be corrected and fine tuned and limited to matters involving real life people and not mere anonymous usernames.
The bill (Senate version in particular) is very poorly drafted.
I gather that what it hoped to achieve was to remove the veil of anonymity from those who would post hurtful/damaging libelous shit about actual real life persons, such as the kind of cyber bullying of children on some social media that has led to suicides.
If little Sally Rottencrotch were a real life school girl and some anonymous dipshit on FaceBook were to "go after" her by tormenting her in a vile personal manner -- saying libelous things about her -- little Sally might feel miserable and lost. And the anonymous internet cyber-bully might feel emboldened because he has a username to hide behind, secure in the knowledge that his real life identity is going to remain anonymous.
It is pretty clear that the bills proposed in NY were intended to remove the ability to hide behind anonymity in the publication of libelous crap like that. But, because the bills were poorly drafted, their reach could go FAR beyond that.
Here at USMB, for instance, if anonymous member says scurrilous and false shit about some other anonymous username, there is no real world harm. Example: When an asshole like Zona falsely declares that I "welshed" on a bet (that had actually been voided) his lie has no power to injure me, personally, because he's taking his dishonest pot-shots at an anonymous Board username.
Nevertheless, as proposed, the stupid NY legislation might be deemed to have sufficient "reach" to apply to that situation. Such a result is facially ridiculous. At the very least, if the proposed legislation ever rises from the dead again, it needs to be corrected and fine tuned and limited to matters involving real life people and not mere anonymous usernames.