No, the lawmaker isn't stupid, and his proposal isn't the outrageous thing you imagine.

Tekkie forums all over the metaverse force people to sign up with real-life information and don't allow anonymous posts just like that.

Say, this blog itself is one of them saying a first-time commentator has to be approved. Hey, where's the love of the conversation?!

The lawmaker is responding to constituents' concerns about anonymous grieftards on the Internet who can inflict enormous amounts of damage (even inciting the MySpace teen to suicide) behind the cover of irresponsible anonymity. It's good HE is willing to have a conversation about this by drafting a law, even if YOU are not.

Prokofy, if there are sites that have problems with anonymous posting, then those sites should stop allowing it, based on pressure from their users/customers, or based on an internal conscience about the issue.

To codify something as far-reaching as this into law really is stupid and not in the interests of anyone but politicians who want to "do something!" without looking at the big picture and the unintended consequences of something done to appease a narrow constituency.

Sad -that- our elected officials choose to ignore the real problems in our society ! Their ability to propose laws that make no sense are the real problem! I don't need the name of a person that posts ! I am not even forced to read their posts ! All he wants to do is collect a free mailing list for political contributions ! How about he passes a bill not allowing compulsive gamblers to bet on the Kentucky Derby and the Drunks not be allowed to Drink Mint Julips, or reform the mental health system to treat Facebook users ! Come on Country Cousins in Politics CUT BAIT and fish you all!

Jeremy, unlike you, I look at a draft law as a conversation in a democratic society. I don't at all suppose I'd advocate a law controlling blog posts. But I'm happy to have the debate about it take the form of a legislative debate -- that's more than fine in a republic.

I don't look at it as "codifying morality into law"; I look at it as one legislator's effort to try to "do something" about what he is seeing and hearing is a terrible problem, even leading to the death of teenagers.

If enough people in Kentucky disagree with you, you'll move your servers, I guess, if they are in Kentucky's jurisdiction.

I just have a lot more respect for representative democracy, even in Kentucky, than you do. You are happy to live in a world of Internet and Metaverse governed by all kinds of tribal chiefs ruling their fiefdoms. I'm not. I'd like to see what could be developed in terms of universal standards for accountability through parliamentary debate.

Why take away from elected parliaments the rights you so happily bestow on anonymous kids?

Having this debate take place in a legislature among elected representatives is just as legitimate as having it on a geek forum with anonymous posters, surely.

You said: "I can't imagine anyone wanting to empower a governmental body to start regulating how, why, and by what means people can participate online."

And you're suggesting that we empower...a gaggle of geeks and game gods instead? Because that's what you're suggesting. You're imagining that within the proliferation of numerous service providers and coders providing ceded permissions to bloggers they tolerate, we will end up with robust First Amendment implementation.

See, that's the problem. Evidently you assume you are powerless in a parliament or congress in a democracy, as technolibertarians without a following, apparently, and therefore you cook up ways to do end-runs around parliaments. You are easily shocked and scared at the idea of *gasp* government regulation because you view the government as "other" and "not something We participate in as technolibertarians".

You raise the specter of these issues being coded into horrible draconian law...as if you yourself don't already wield this horrible draconian law on each and every forums maintained such to allow anonymous haters and griefers cause indelible harm.

State legislatures are sure as heck going to get in on the act of beginning to govern this unruly space that has caused such harm.

I personally have very simple rules on my blog. You can post any sort of hate speech or vicious invective you want, but you have to use a first and last Second Life name or a recognizable blog name. Not even a real name! But at least be consistent and take responsibility before a defined community of people.

I find that permitting anonymous commentary on a free-for-all comments section rapidly leads to criminality, with death threats, accusations of libel, defamation of others, etc. etc. -- and then I have the blog providing service's TOS to worry about and lose my blog altogether.

All he wants to do is collect a free mailing list for political contributions ! How about he passes a bill not allowing compulsive gamblers to bet on the Kentucky Derby and the Drunks not be allowed to Drink Mint Julips, or reform the mental health system to treat Facebook users ! Come on Country Cousins in Politics CUT BAIT and fish you all!

See, here's another very clear example of the problem -- geeks view representative democracy in cultures and states and countries they find culturally distasteful to be a caricature. They don't believe they can have a stake in it. They believe all representative democracy is corrupt and drinking mint juleps. But, sorry, the people I voted for in my state aren't the caricatures you imagine -- one is running on the Democratic ticket for president. So spare me your cultural stereotypes.

What, you can't get a technolibertarian geek into the statehouse to represent your interests?

Why?

This bill is a step in the right direction. There's too much freedom in this country.