Illinois state senator pushes anti-anonymity bill

Originally posted by CryHavoc

Are you serious that you think Homeland Security is going to come knocking on your door because of something you spouted off about on the Internet?

Hey, look, you're paranoia is showing.

Besides, nobody wants to deal with some moron with no manners and less common sense spouting off their manifesto of life and who they are going to screw over, cowardly hiding behind an anonymous name.

I thought so too - until the experience I had on another site. While they didn't personally knock on my door, LE did knock on other poster's doors. I was directly threatened by email. (I think I'm a pretty calm and respectful poster too).

While I'm not 100% sure of the exact help, the LE agency WAS working very closely with Federal agencies.

Like I said it was pretty shocking - so yes it can happen and probably will again.

Originally posted by CryHavoc

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

It just amazes me when I encounter people who can't tell the difference between 'Free Speech' and inflammatory speech.

reply to post by CryHavoc

 

Nobody is talking about yelling fire in a theater, other than you.

You might want to talk to the person who asked me to elaborate. But it's interesting to note that you can't tell it's related to anonymous speech.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
The issue comes down to being able to express VIEWS, without worrying about whether they will hear a knock on the door in the middle of the night, with Homeland Security taking you away, as a "terrorist".

So write to a newspaper using a fake name. That's what a Free Press is for. The Internet is a privilege, not a right.

You can write a book, but the publisher will know your name.

Are you serious that you think Homeland Security is going to come knocking on your door because of something you spouted off about on the Internet?

Hey, look, you're paranoia is showing.

Besides, nobody wants to deal with some moron with no manners and less common sense spouting off their manifesto of life and who they are going to screw over, cowardly hiding behind an anonymous name.

Unless it's good comedy.

edit on 24-2-2013 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)

Some of our world's best thinkers wrote some works anonymously. It is pretty common knowledge that under certain circumstances when free speech is limited or nonexistant that being anonymous is beneficial if someone desires the ability of breathing.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77Some of our world's best thinkers wrote some works anonymously. It is pretty common knowledge that under certain circumstances when free speech is limited or nonexistant that being anonymous is beneficial if someone desires the ability of breathing.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)

Nothing is stopping anyone from writing anything down on paper.

Originally posted by CryHavoc

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77Some of our world's best thinkers wrote some works anonymously. It is pretty common knowledge that under certain circumstances when free speech is limited or nonexistant that being anonymous is beneficial if someone desires the ability of breathing.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)

Nothing is stopping anyone from writing anything down on paper.

You are missing the point, computers and the internet are in many regards the equivalant of books were in the annals of history.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77
You are missing the point, computers and the internet are in many regards the equivalant of books were in the annals of history.

No, I get the point. It's just hard to accept someone's insistence that their rights are being infringed when they are refusing to use other available avenues to exercise their rights. Books still exist. Newspapers still exist. Libraries still exist. Just because people are refusing to use them to exercise their rights doesn't mean they don't exist.

Your point would make more sense if you weren't allowed to write a book or visit a library or publish a letter to the editor in a newspaper.

It just seems pretentious.

Originally posted by CryHavoc

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77
You are missing the point, computers and the internet are in many regards the equivalant of books were in the annals of history.

No, I get the point. It's just hard to accept someone's insistence that their rights are being infringed when they are refusing to use other available avenues to exercise their rights. Books still exist. Newspapers still exist. Libraries still exist. Just because people are refusing to use them to exercise their rights doesn't mean they don't exist.

Your point would make more sense if you weren't allowed to write a book or visit a library or publish a letter to the editor in a newspaper.

It just seems pretentious.

edit on 24-2-2013 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)

Who says that a hypothetical person refuses to use other means to express thier opinions anonymously? I am sure that some do, but that is a pretty broad brush to paint everyone with. So you would take away everyone's rights to the safety of anonymous free speech to curtail the ones who abuse it? That seems rather authoritarian to me, taking away freedom to punish the few does not make a good idea.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77
So you would take away everyone's rights to the safety of anonymous free speech to curtail the ones who abuse it?

Who is taking away 'everyone's rights'?

Nobody.

You can still publish a book under a pen name (but your publisher will know who the check is sent to). You can still publish an article in a newspaper. That's what a Free Press is for. You can even put a Captain America mask on your face with a message painted on your t-shirt and go walk around town. You can still hand out flyers or hold up a picket sign on the sidewalk in front of Wally-Mart, if you like.

And what is your punishment for those who abuse it? A slap on the wrist?

And where does it stop? I mean, people have been trying to curtail my opinion in this thread (which is really ironic). Where do your rights end and mine begin? Where do my rights end and yours begin?

Originally posted by CryHavoc

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77
So you would take away everyone's rights to the safety of anonymous free speech to curtail the ones who abuse it?

Who is taking away 'everyone's rights'?

Nobody.

You can still publish a book under a pen name (but your publisher will know who the check is sent to). You can still publish an article in a newspaper. That's what a Free Press is for. You can even put a Captain America mask on your face with a message painted on your t-shirt and go walk around town. You can still hand out flyers or hold up a picket sign on the sidewalk in front of Wally-Mart, if you like.

And what is your punishment for those who abuse it? A slap on the wrist?

And where does it stop? I mean, people have been trying to curtail my opinion in this thread (which is really ironic). Where do your rights end and mine begin? Where do my rights end and yours begin?

edit on 25-2-2013 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)

I don't think a punishment is necessary really except calling said idiot abusing the right out and ignoring them out of hand. You can't ban ignorance or stupidity in my opinion. I am actually not trying to curtail your view, it is our rights as people to think differently and that is fine. Rights end at the point that they impede on another persons rights. For example I have the right to call another person a bad name even though it is rude, I do not have the right to post on social media networking that they commited a serious crime with no evidence proving it (use your imagination any crime will do) as that is defamation of character. To take away someone's rights to anonymity based on an insult or an opinion you don't agree with is ludicrous in my opinion.

We don't have to like the things that come out of someone's pie hole, but they still have a right as annoying as it is to say those things unless it in some way takes away someone else's rights (freedom, etc.).

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77
I don't think a punishment is necessary really except calling said idiot abusing the right out and ignoring them out of hand.

And when their abuse of their 'right' results in 'inciting to riot', 'reckless endangerment', 'creating a public panic' or worse, everyone is just supposed to shrug their shoulders and what? Laugh it off? What do you think should happen if someone dies because that 'idiot' exercised their right? Gets murdered? Commits suicide? There are laws against 'inciting to murder' or 'inciting to suicide' in the real world. They are felonies in Illinois. But I guess you think someone should get away with it because they do it on the World Wild Web?

I don't think you have any real idea of what's at stake here.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77We don't have to like the things that come out of someone's pie hole, but they still have a right as annoying as it is to say those things unless it in some way takes away someone else's rights (freedom, etc.).

And just how are you going to do anything about it if they do take away someone else's rights, if they are anonymous?

Originally posted by CryHavoc
Someone who yells Fire! in a crowded room when there is no fire is usually charged with either 'inciting to riot', 'reckless endangerment', or 'creating a public panic'. It just amazes me when I encounter people who can't tell the difference between 'Free Speech' and inflammatory speech. 'Free speech' does not mean you can just say anything.

We have that distinction out of the way then. That is why I asked the initial question.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place.

Hiibel was arrested after the officers established 4th Amendment statutes of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. At that point, Hiibel's arguments were moot. Hiibel was behind the ball from the beginning when the police were able to establish probable cause for the initial stop and suspicion; otherwise this case would have swung the other way. To highlight the opposite, see Brown v. Texas.

Point being (and why I said in my reply earlier to you: depends) is the police cannot arbitrarily ask you for an ID. If you are on a mid-summer's stroll through the park and the police ask you for an ID, you are just in every Right to ask why and say no until they can either foster up some magical suspicion or let you on your way.

Hiibel was arrested after not producing ID.

His refusal to identify himself solidified the original suspicion and gave cause for the officer to arrest him; it wasn't arbitrary. Also the basis of the case has multitudes of reason for arrest: suspicion of driving an automobile without a license, possible DUI, etc, etc. Find me a case where someone walking down "Main Street" refuses an officer's demands for an ID, with no probable cause or a reasonable suspicion. Stevens in his dissent, points this very fact out.

In case you are wondering Hiibel was charged not with "failure to produce an ID" but rather "willfully resist[ing], delay[ing], or obstruct[ing] a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office" Big difference.

In his dissent, Stevens highlights that the "stop-and-identify" statute that Nevada has is "..directed not at the public at large, but rather at a highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities."

This case highlights the narrow application (as it should be) from Court to Court. Hiibel says it is okay, so long as probable cause is established in the initial suspicion (i.e, a store is robbed and the police seek to identify patrons leaving the store at that moment; that is reasonable). But in Terry, they state that "...the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the office's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond." In other words, refusal to identify yourself is by no means grounds of arrest.

Furthermore, looking at Nevada' statute, it only is a means of identifying yourself, not producing an ID.

The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.”

All the case-law in the States that relate to "stop-and-identify" all rely upon reasonable suspicion to justify the initial stop (a Terry stop) and not just arbitrary officers randomly asking you for your ID. So no, you are not required to carry and/or be compelled to identify yourself to an officer of the law, in the general.

Originally posted by CryHavoc
So write to a newspaper using a fake name. That's what a Free Press is for. The Internet is a privilege, not a right.

Why is one medium in your view a Right but another a privilege? We could examine the clause "of the Free Press" to highlight that in the time of writing the First Amendment, Press meant nothing of what we know it to mean today. Today, the Press is an all-inclusive namespace that means the media in-large. Yet, in the late 18th century, the press was the instrument in which we utilized to facilitate our "Free Speech". It could be said that the clause is carried forward to today in whatever means utilized to facilitate our speech, is our Right to do and to have opportunity for access.

The premier tool of the day to disseminate our free speech was the printing press. The First Amendment speaks to limiting government as widest as possible in regards to how speech was to fall under regulation. It is one thing to tell the people "you can speak your mind", but then make no attempt at limiting government from regulating the means in which you can actually spread your speech.

So again, why is one medium to you a Right and the other a privilege?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
In case you are wondering Hiibel was charged not with "failure to produce an ID" but rather "willfully resist[ing], delay[ing], or obstruct[ing] a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office"

So you are saying that Hiibel would have still been arrested if he did produce ID that was requested? Because that's sure isn't how it sounds. He refused to provide ID. The name of the crime he was charged with is moot. He was asked for ID, he refused to provide it. He was arrested as a result of not providing ID.

So anyone who is under reasonable suspicion has to carry ID. As long as the Police don't suspect you of anything EVER, you don't have to carry ID.

Any time I've ever been asked to identify myself to Police, they didn't ask: "Hey, what's your name", they said: "Hey, let's see some ID".

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
So again, why is one medium to you a Right and the other a privilege?

Do you have the right to a cell phone? How about a bullhorn? Do you have the right to put an ad on TV? What if you can't afford their fees for advertisement? Should the government then provide you the money to pay for advertising? These are all means of communication. Why aren't they provided for you for free if they are rights?

Originally posted by CryHavoc
So you are saying that Hiibel would have still been arrested if he did produce ID that was requested? Because that's sure isn't how it sounds. He refused to provide ID. The name of the crime he was charged with is moot. He was asked for ID, he refused to provide it. He was arrested as a result of not providing ID.

The sheriff’s department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the truck parked on the side of the road. A man was standing by the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe it had come to a sudden stop.

Whether he would have been arrested or not, we can only speculate but the charges would have been different. The officer was conducting a valid stop and investigation to what appeared to be a crime and the man impeded that investigation. In this instance, the man should have at least given a name (which would have satisfied the statute by the way) and agree with the totality of this case, the opinion and dissent.

The police officer was operating under reasonable suspicion given the nature of the call and all factors satisfy the 4th Amendment in probable cause; matching id of the automobile, the skid marks, and an apparently intoxicated man. The situation is far different than the scenario I presented in the beginning which is the police have no expectation to arbitrarily seek identification of citizens; Stevens concurs in his dissent in that case.

Playing with a hypothetical in this situation, if the officer happened upon the scene, with no prior knowledge such as they had, he could have requested, but Hiibel would not have been compelled to produce it.

So anyone who is under reasonable suspicion has to carry ID. As long as the Police don't suspect you of anything EVER, you don't have to carry ID.

No you don't have to carry an ID. The point here since you brought Hiibel into the discussion is that the production of your identity in the course of a legal detention (Terry stop) by an officer of the law. You are, under the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendments protected for unreasonable search and requests from an officer. Again, I can go out and walk the streets without an ID and I guarantee you I will never be arrested for it. His charges are absolutely relevant because he was arrested for interfering with the officer's ability to perform his duties in a rightful stop and detention. If the gentleman told him his name without producing this "ID" card, none of this would have happened.

You are stating that we must carry an ID card so we can subject ourselves to the authorities when they feel like it and I am arguing otherwise.

Do you have the right to a cell phone? How about a bullhorn? Do you have the right to put an ad on TV? What if you can't afford their fees for advertisement. Should the government then provide you the money to pay for advertising? These are all means of communication. Why aren't they provided for you for free if they are rights?

Yes you do and that is why I said to the effect that we are all afforded equal opportunity and access to such mediums; regardless of the content of the speech. I never argued that the Government should pay for that access. You are mixing the two clauses in my opinion. The first application is our speech. Government is barred from regulated it and its content (reasonably). The second application is the means of which we disseminate it, the press. Paper, pencils, newspapers, magazines, internet access, television access all require some form of capital to utilize. You make claim if you want to exercise your free speech that it is limited to the "Press" (you mean media/newspapers) but even then, they are a private business that has no obligation to present what you write.

In this case, the Government wishes to force a private company to follow and formulate terms of services (regulating the Press) on Government's terms, when it is solely reserved that said company is the final determination in those terms of services.

reply to post by CryHavoc


Your logic is flawed. If an anonymous person breaks a law or abused someone else's rights then the law has every right and means to track down said individual (ISP, records with website owner as to identity etc.). That said, there is no reason John Q. Public should be informed as to the identity of the person, where they live, what thier phone number is or any of that, to argue otherwise is ridiulous. If you make anonymity a thing of the past all you accomplish is putting a nail in the coffin of free speech.

We have bent on too many freedoms, the time to say NO is now! I will NOT give up my rights to free speech because someone got called a doodyhead by someone else anonymously. If someone anonymous breaks the law then it is the responsibilty for the letter agencies required to do thier job and track the person down to bring to justice. It simply put is not the public's business to know who the person is, where he lives, what his phone number is PERIOD. Let the FBI, CIA, NSA, and any other applicible agencies do thier job!

Are you serious that you think Homeland Security is going to come knocking on your door because of something you spouted off about on the Internet? Hey, look, you're paranoia is showing.

reply to post by CryHavoc


You don't know how wrong you are. BTW, it wasn't Homeland Security, it was the FBI, and it wasn't posted anonymously,