New Jersey Assemblyman introduced bill to force online identification

Peter J. Biondi, NJ Assemblyman for District 16, has introduced A1327, a bill to force every ISP and website with comments/forums to demand user identification from every single poster (called an "information content provider" in the bill).  While ostensibly an effort to stop defamation on the net, the identification requirements apply to all posters, not just those who defame others:

2.  The operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish, maintain and enforce a policy to require any information content provider who posts written messages on a public forum website either to be identified by a legal name and address, or to register a legal name and address with the operator of the interactive computer service or the Internet service provider through which the information content provider gains access to the interactive computer service or Internet, as appropriate.

The bill also forces all ISP and websites to turn over that information upon demand to anyone who claims to have been defamed, without any legal process or protections:

3.  An operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.

There is no doubt that defamation is illegal, but this kind of a solution to the problem is a nightmare.  There are many legitimate reasons to post anonymously online. For example, gay teens in homophobic areas often go online to ask questions anonymously about their sexual identity; sexual assault victims often seek support and recovery resources anonymously online; and patients interested in controversial procedures like abortion often need anonymity to seek medical information safely.

Under this bill, all of these people would have to identify themselves to any website to which they posted, leaving them open to harassment, stalking, and even physical attack.  Moreover, the risk of identity theft, spam profiling, and other forms of information exploitation increase when we are forced to associate every activity we undertake online with who we are legally.  The bill takes no precautions to avoid any of these pitfalls, especially since anyone can request the information by merely alleging the poster defamed them.

Fortunately, it appears that 47 USC 230 (known as CDA 230) would most likely preempt this bill and makes it void, but efforts like this should be roundly criticized and avoided at all costs.

Comments

[Annie Mouse]

"efforts like this should be roundly criticized and avoided at all costs."

Well that's pretty mild. "...should be roundly ciritcized"?

How about Biondi should be kicked out of the human race as being too stupid to live? This proposed legislation doesn't merit the serious and measured response you gave.

[Mike]

Assemblyman Biondi is just another uninformed fascist who wants to eradicate free speech. His bill would be *impossible* to implement, but that's obviously of no real concern to him.

It's incredibly shameful that someone with this kind of mentality could somehow have been given a position of power in the US Government.

[Ed Gibson]

While I'm sure his intentions are good this bill would be so costly to implement that it wouldn"t be economicaly wise.Not a good idea.However i'm sure his intentions were to protect people.Predators and such.Anyone else out there feel the same as I do?

[nedu]

Whether or not the CDA would preempt this act, in Dendrite International v John Does, Judge Fall noted (p.3 in PDF) that the New Jersey Supreme Court has found:

"Precedent, text, structure, and history all compel the conclusion that the New Jersey Constitution's right of free speech is broader than the right against governmental abridgement of speech found in the First Amendment."

(Quoted in source; citation omitted.)

[Pathman]

As I am Stig Carlsson, still of Industrigatan 5, 462 38 Vänersborg I can tell them to to GFT with a vengeance!
If You try to get it through Bruxelles without the peoples Consent You can bloody well dig your Moat yourselves! )I for certain will just vote you out of office, and don't tell me i can't do so because i'm not yet anonted by God!

[Tracy Eckels]

This is just incredibly stupid. How people like this get elected is amazing.
Personally, I believe in the 1st ammendment just as strongly as anyone else, but I also believe that if you're going to make a statement, have the courage to own it. That is why I don't like people who cowardly make angry or disparaging comments anonimously. If you've got something to say, own it!
The first ammendment gives you the freedom to say what you want, whether you're smart about what you say is a different story.

[GaijinBiker]

Jason, I'm not as much of a Law Geek as you are, but what is the state of the law on protecting anonymous speech online?

Consider McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment), and Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc, 140 F.Supp.2d 1088 (2001) (plaintiff could not subpoena ISP to produce identity of online commenter who was not a party to shareholder derivative lawsuit).

I am sure there must be a vast jurisprudence on the subject by now... which way is it leaning?

[nedu]

I am sure there must be a vast jurisprudence on the subject by now [...]

GaijinBiker,

I myself am certainly not nearly as much of a Law Geek as Jason. But recently, in Doe v Cahill (2005), Mr. Chief Justice Steele of the Delaware Supreme Court reported (p.10 in PDF):

The parties inform us that we are the first State Supreme Court to address this issue, particularly in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure. In the past, this issue has most frequently been presented in cases where publicly traded companies have sued anonymous internet posters for statements that allegedly defamed those companies.

Unless a significant number of the other 49 state supreme courts have delivered opinions since last autumn, I would tend to doubt that the jurisprudence on this subject could be fairly characterized as "vast".

[Greg Rozelle]

I have trouble with grammar and spelling and my comment my appear rude or derogatory without meaning to. This is why I don’t usually reveal my name. The cost of message boards it would increase. Plus, they would have t shut them down. Imagine spyware warrior being shutdown. It would be a good possibility. I wonder how that would work with news servers like news.grc.com and others. I am sure Tim Allen Actor would reveal his name. There are also jokesters that sometime go over the line without realizing it. Another thing is I don’t like to reveal my address. There is also another problem. There are people that have the same first and last name. Even with my usually name I have there are at least 10 other Greg Rozelle’s

[Peter Biondi]

Hi, I want all your names. I wan't to control the internet. I want to stop people from talking about things - they have no right to talk about.
I am not a facist ass, and if anyone say's I am - they're going to regret it.
I am not involved in any dealings with organized crime.