Would u guys stay as active members of the board (or any board) if

[MBA101]

The asinine thing being discussed in this article is passed?

 

http://www.wtvq.com/content/midatlantic/tvq/video.apx.-content-articles-TVQ-2008-03-05-0011.html

 

I wouldn't, for security reasons. What about u?

[jtryka]

Once again, I am reminded of one of may favorite quotes:

 

"Suppose you were an i-d-i-o-t. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." --Mark Twain

 

This one is also good, but not as pithy:

 

"All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for i-d-i-o-t-s, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity."

[DC Dawg]

I understand why he wants to do this. But it is a narrow-minded solution to his perceived problem. The Internet is more than Facebook and the other social networking sites. I hope that the Kentucky legislature has the common sense to let this die in committee.

 

Scott

[cpm9ball]

I don't know why Couch thinks that his proposal is the panacea for the problems of the internet. Why don't they just bring back the "stoning wall"?

 

Chris

[Just Bob]

In the interest of full disclosure, and as an attempt to comply with the letter of the law, I will go ahead and let everyone know: My name is JOHN SMITH.

[James_OldeTowne]

Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying.

 

What an idiot concept! I have a better idea. If someone is feeling "bullied" on-line, then tell that person to get OFF line!

 

Edited to add: I would still remain a member of this board, since I use my real name anyhow.

By Kellie Wilson

E-mail | Biography

 

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.

 

The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.

 

Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.

 

If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.

 

Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.

 

Action News 36 asked people what they thought about the bill.

 

Some said they felt it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Others say it is a good tool toward eliminating online harassment.

 

Represntative Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge.

[Conder101]

Even if it passed if would just be thrown out by any sensible court (That may also be an oxymoron.) as unenforcable. It becomes a jurisdictional problem. If the site is hosted on server that isn't in Kentucky, and/or the owners of the site are not in Kentucky then the Ky law has no jurisdiction. About the only way I could see it being applied would be if provided penalties for ISP's that carried forums that allowed anonymous posting. That wouldn't hurt the site too much but it would pretty much mean that every ISP in KY would have to filter out almost every forum and auction site on the internet, all of the social sites, in short just about everything. I'm sure his constituents in Ky would just LOVE that. (Would it apply to the anonymous buyers and sellers on eBay as well?) Maybe he figures that the people in Ky are just backwards folks who don't need this new fangled internet. They should just read the stuff he sends them in the mail to tell them what's going on and they don't need other sources of information.

[okbustchaser]

An infringment on my First Amendment rights? Sure it is, so what else is new.

 

That said, I would have much less of a problem with this--anyone who wants to know my name is welcome to ask--then many other infringments of my constitutional rights passed since 9-11.

[RWB]

Odd idea!

 

Isn’t Kentucky the only state that tries to collect a royalty when the name is used as part of a product? I recall something about Kentucky Fried Chicken changing to “KFC” because of that. Must be something strange in the kentucky bourbon (small “k” not a state name – no royalty due….).

[pendragon1998]

The scary part is this:

Some said they felt it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Others say it is a good tool toward eliminating online harassment. (emphasis mine)

 

America has a long history of anonymous commentary on society - Thomas Paine's Common Sense pamphlet back in 1776 comes immediately to mind. Of course, the many sheeple of America will no doubt be willing to give up yet another ounce of freedom so that they can 'feel safer'.

[WoodenJefferson]

[Dcoin]

I would not post, only because the registration process would likely include information that would find its way into the hands of marketers.

[DC Dawg]

Isn’t Kentucky the only state that tries to collect a royalty when the name is used as part of a product? I recall something about Kentucky Fried Chicken changing to “KFC” because of that. Must be something strange in the kentucky bourbon (small “k” not a state name – no royalty due….).

Roger... Kentucky is constitutionally a commonwealth. Although there are three other commonwealths in the US, Kentucky's constitution is the only one to mandate the ideas of the "common well being" of its citizens. Although many states have laws that make the joke lists, Kentucky does its best to try to institutionalize the institution under the ideals of the commonwealth. This appears to be another attempt at doing something that would be justified as part of the state's commonwealth status. The ACLU would have a field day with this one!!

 

The scary part is this:America has a long history of anonymous commentary on society - Thomas Paine's Common Sense pamphlet back in 1776 comes immediately to mind. Of course, the many sheeple of America will no doubt be willing to give up yet another ounce of freedom so that they can 'feel safer'.

My first thought were the Federalist Papers. Considering the political situation of the time, the authors may not have had a future. As we know today, the authors did very well after the Federalist Papers were signed "PUBLIUS." Alexander Hamilton became our first Secretary of the Treasury; James Monroe became the 5th president after being the 7th Secretary of State and 8th Secretary of War; and John Jay who became the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

 

And for Woody... this one is for you:

 

Scott

[rrantique]

 

 

Quick, get rid of the evidence!!

[bsshog40]

You would think that the State Representatives would work harder to catch on-line predators than bullies!!

[just-john]

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.

 

This would cost the people of KY millions in tax dollars to just check the names and address.========The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.

 

Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted

.

Millions more to keep track of this idea

If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.

If I lived in Eastern Kentucky

I would not take to kindly to Mr Couch telling the world we needed help with people bullying us on line

Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.

 

 

Challenging think they know it's call the World Wide Web for a reason.

 

Represntative Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge.

Everybody from now on should be extra nice to people from Eastern Kentucky because they have a insufficiently_thoughtful_person for a Representive Dear Rep Couch fine me first I could use the extra money

 

[Conder101]

Things like this are why when I tell someone I was born in Kentucky I also say "but it wasn't my idea!"

[DC Dawg]

You would think that the State Representatives would work harder to catch on-line predators than bullies!!

YOU think, but that does not mean a politician, regardless of party or the body served, thinks!!

 

Scott

[CHABSENTIA]

The problem with that reasoning is that the government bodies at any level and of any persuasion do not think and either consciously or sub consciuosly mislead instead..

 

 

 

There is no way to prove it but I am pretty sure that either this guy or a close friend of his was personally irritated by a poster that used an anonymous name.

 

 

Otherwise they just go through the motions of acting as if they care.

[RWB]

Scott:

 

Kentucky is what Kentucky is -- there must be something in the bourbon since the state politicians seem to follow your comment: "But it is a narrow-minded solution to his perceived problem."

 

According to the respected Snopes website:

 

In 1991, Kentucky Fried chicken announced that it was officially changing its name to "KFC" (as well as updating its packaging and logo with a more modern, sleeker look). The public relations reason given for the name change was that health-conscious consumers associated the word "fried" with "unhealthy" and "high cholesterol," causing some of them to completely shun the wide variety of "healthy" menu items being introduced at Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets. The new title and image were designed to lure back customers to a restaurant now offering foods branded as "better for you," we were told.

 

It sounded good, but the real reason behind the shift to KFC had nothing to do with healthy food or finicky consumers: it was about money — money that Kentucky Fried Chicken would have had to pay to continue using their original name. In 1990, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, mired in debt, took the unusual step of trademarking their name. Henceforth, anyone using the word "Kentucky" for business reasons — inside or outside of the state — would have to obtain permission and pay licensing fees to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It was an unusual and brilliant scheme to alleviate government debt, but it was also one that alienated one of the most famous companies ever associated with Kentucky. The venerable Kentucky Fried Chicken chain, a mainstay of American culture since its first franchise opened in Salt Lake City in 1952, refused as a matter of principle to pay royalties on a name they had been using for four decades. After a year of fruitless negotiations with the Kentucky state government, Kentucky Fried Chicken — unwilling to submit to "such a terrible injustice" — threw in the towel and changed their name instead, timing the announcement to coincide with the introduction of new packaging and products to obscure the real reasons behind the altering of their corporate name.

 

Kentucky Fried Chicken were not the only ones who bravely refused to knuckle under. The name of the most famous horse race in North America, held every year at Churchill Downs, was changed from the "Kentucky Derby" to "The Run for the Roses" for similar reasons; many seed and nursery outfits that had previously offered Kentucky Bluegrass switched to a product known as "Shenandoah Bluegrass" instead; and Neil Diamond's song "Kentucky Woman" was dropped from radio playlists at his request, as the licensing fees he was obligated to pay the Commonwealth of Kentucky exceeded the performance royalties he was receiving for the airplay.

 

Update: In November 2006, KFC and the State of Kentucky finally reached an undisclosed settlement over the former's use of the trademarked word "Kentucky," and the restaurant chain announced it would be resuming its former name of "Kentucky Fried Chicken."

 

[MrEureka-migration]

The First Amendment protects free speech. However, I'm not convinced that it also protects the right to anonymity. Can anyone provide the legal precedent?

 

Regardless, if the idea is to stop bullying, why not simply make bullying illegal? Of course, "bullying" would need to be defined for the law to be enforceable, or for me to have an opinion on the desirability of the "anti-bullying" law.

 

 

 

 

[DJCoinz]

I understand why he wants to do this. But it is a narrow-minded solution to his perceived problem. The Internet is more than Facebook and the other social networking sites. I hope that the Kentucky legislature has the common sense to let this die in committee.

 

Scott

I am in total agreement with you...

[DJCoinz]

Things like this are why when I tell someone I was born in Kentucky I also say "but it wasn't my idea!"

[TheMightyDuke]

I can't imagine that anyone could take the rantings of an obviously socially introverted person seriously.

 

 

to answer the question directly, yes I would.

[Houston Investor]

This is another example of the assault on our bill of rights. Perhaps they are trying to distract the common man from the falling dollar, US fiat currency, or the fact our Navy who was challenged by an Iranian patrol boat recently did not simply sink it. I resent someone attempting to suppress my freedom of speach. I can only wonder what a potential adversary like China (who can give the US a real fight) is wondering about our politically correct, gloabalist, weak, debtor, lack of backbone society. I recently read they are installing hundreds of missles that can hit targets far out at sea (carrier killers) - I bet they think the USA would not have the guts to nuke them in mainline China (blasting about half a billion of them from the face of the Earth) if push came to shove in a shooting war - afterall the US Navy would not even sink a puny Iranian patrol boat when challenged recently. I am beginning to wonder if our country is not being run by people who have the mentality of data entry / accounts payable clerks. What are they going to do one day when someone like China who after builiding up their military has come to fight? China must be laughing their rear ends off at us in unbelief that we have not engaged, obliterated Iran and Syria (who are aiding the insurgents in Iraq and Hamas all over the place) or wonder with glee why we have not simply blasted the enemy areas in Iraq from the face of the earth with fire bombs, napalm, or gas. Yes our enemy in Iraq uses sucide bombers, but has that population pool been rounded up and detained in re-education camps and its philosophical base excised?

 

Unfortunately our society believes its more important to ostracize and remove a politician who like many married men has a mistress than one who is out to take away our freedom of speech. What we need is a presidential candidate who is a NATIONALIST who is not afraid to say goodbye to political correctness, globalism, our leaking borders, kidgloves with our enemies, and the UN.

 

As rare coin investors we can ony keep buying nice stuff: Gold and silver have just begun to reach new heights.

[WinstonWare]

Fortunately, nobody knows who I am