Reader Feedback: Banning Anonymous Comments?

A of legislation co-sponsored by Assemblyman Dean Murray regarding anonymous comments was discussed this week by Patchogue Patch readers.

The bill, should it pass, would require New York based websites to remove anonymous comments upon request.

The unscientific poll on Patch brought in 69 votes, with 56 percent voting that anonymous commenting should not be banned.

Below are what people said in the comments section on the topic (And while on the subject of comments, feel free to browse Patch's Terms to see what can and cannot be commented on Patch).

Many have decried the proposition as an infringement on free speech. But what about an individual's right to confront an accuser? If one does not know who one's accuser is, how can the accuser be confronted? All you have is an anonymous confronter who does not have to respond and who can fade into oblivion, never being required to substantiate an accusation. Many anonymous posts are downright libelous and worthy of suit if only the accused knew whom to sue.

Your right to confront your accuser is a right you have in a criminal court. Know your constitution. Ellie

Worthy goal and totally unenforceable. The US Supreme court has upheld the right to post anonymous comments as a first amendment right time and time and time again.

You are correct, John, but only to a point. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection.

Gee, FOX Fraudcasting does all of the above, absent child pornography, and gets away with it ad nauseum. But, this is not a court of law, and if people are so cowardly as to not want people to know what total dumbasses they are, that's their constitutional right to remain anonymous. As much as I hate it that some people find the need to lie like rugs, and accuse others of absolute blather and nonsense, their rights should be protected. Having said that, absolute threats and child pornography are exceptions. That shouldn't trump the rights of everyone else. I voted NO in this poll.

I thought the republicans were the party of smaller government and less government interference with personal rights. Or do they mean only the rights to make obscene amounts of $$$ and evade taxes if you're rich?

Every person has a constitutional right to leave any comment they would like,but they should have to sign their name. As a business manager I have experienced a client that has bad mouth us every few months on line for 4 years. She refused to pay her bill, so we took her to court and won. She still refused to pay her bill, until the sheriff came to repossess her car. She paid her bill then, but she also made it her goal to try to hurt us the only way she could. Fortunately, we have so many great reviews that she does not effect our scores. People should not be able to hurt ligitamate business or people if that can not defend themselves. If your comments are true then you would feel comfortable signing your name.

Let's remember, America had the first seeds of independence through the publishing of anonymous pamphleteers.

Benjamin Franklin published under the name Poor Richard.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay's, Federalist Papers were first published anonymously.

The first amendment was added by individuals like these to protect the rights they enjoyed at the nations founding. It shouldn't be trampled on for political correctness.

Jon thomas, you make an excellent point. This is a difficult question. I do think that on this site and others like it anonymous comments should not be allowed.

Great Points. All around. However, could this bill be in response to the childish comments, that clearly cross the borders of slander. 
For that reason. I do support Assemblyman Murray's bill. Slander and defamatory anonymous comments have no place in the exchange of ideas in an intelectual debate. 
Thanks Dean

It's nobody's business who I am unless I choose to say so, period. You can't have a free flow of information without anonymity. That's why good reporters protect the identity of their sources. That's why the identity of informants are not revealed to the public. That's why no one is looking over your shoulder when you vote. Good websites have moderators who filter out cyber bullying and other crimes. Maybe start there. But don't take away my privilege to speak my mind freely without fear. This bill is the very kind of thing we're trying to help the oppressed overcome. Shame on these lawmakers!

No they should not be banned, as annoying as they are. they can be a source of "insight". 
Some people have something valid to say but may be embarassed (sp) so they just put it out there without their name. 
Just an opinion!!

"I" was "BORN" in Brentwood, Grew up in Patchogue, "I'm" a Grad of Patchogue High- 
1963. Yep-50-Yrs-Ago. And in my "OPINION" Anyone worth their Medal should have the (______) Hops-Bah to stand UP for what they "SAY". I spent 23 & 21 Yrs in public 
service and "TODAY" it's NOTHING but LIE's & FRAUD from the Top Down Starting in the white"HOUSE" & Congress & Senate.....

It's simply amazing how easily people will give up their rights under the guise of being protected from something until they realize what that right really meant. But at that realization it is sometimes too late. Benjamin Franklin, as you will probably recall, used to publish letters in the New England Courant under the name "Silence Dogood". It allowed him to express things he wouldn't have as easily been able to under his real name. Sometimes an idea is more important than the person it came from.

"Still Anon". Agree 100%,but when you cross the legal line of slander and defamation, then you give up that right, and should be held accountable...Agree, or disagree???

Just like the govt. wants to know who owns guns, it's all B.S.. because history show that a free prevents tyranny

What people with any smarts say as a joke is "if I heard someone say "blah blah blah" so it must be true. I know about 1/2 truths too.......

It's unfortunate that the first 3 words ("Upon request shall") were left out when quoting the language of the bill in the story. This left the impression that I'm trying to ban all anonymous posts. That’s not the case. The intent of the bill is to focus on protecting those being targeted by malicious and false statements. The requirement to attach your name to a statement would only apply if the statement is challenged and it can only be challenged based on factual information not opinion. It is the victim, or target of the statement that has to reach out to the administrator. 
The First Amendment is one of our most important rights as Americans, and this bill ensures the protection of that right for those who wish to post opinions and truthful information anonymously. Unfortunately, some opponents of this legislation have mischaracterized this bill in an attempt to have it withdrawn. It has been stated that this legislation would ban all anonymous internet postings in New York. That could not be further from the truth. 
When anonymous posters hide behind the internet to commit a crime (such as harassment) or as a vehicle for defamation, innocent men, women and children are openly victimized, and the public is intentionally mislead. This legislation merely asks those making their allegations to attach their name to their comments and claim responsibility, just as journalists and those writing letters to the editor of newspapers.

Assemblyman Murray, 
My question to you is, what makes a statement considered true? Does that mean a whisteblower posting to expose corruption in Government and Corporations have to prove their statement to be true in court and fight an army of lawyers before you can post about it? Also revealing your true name can expose one to repercussions and vindictive actions by those more powerful and in possession of far more resources than oneself. If you're true motive is to protect children from Cyberbullies a better way to approach that is to introduce and expedited subpoena process for social networks in those situations. Leave comments on news site alone!

..for example, if I post my real name, I am afraid that I will be visited by IRS, my local town, the police and every other bureaucratic agency on Long Island because I angered a public official and stirred the hornet's nest. I can criticize a local business that can be juiced in with public officials and I can pay the price in that respect. That is why anonymity is important as it levels they playing field.

Pat R 
As long as the comment is appropriate and specific to the subject I feel it should be allowed to be anonymous. When someone gives their opinion or feeling about a subject it may expose them to ridicule or harm in different ways. However, we should still be allowed to voice an opinion...

Not long ago a Texas jury awarded a couple who'd been repeated defamed on a Web forum $13 million. A judge ordered the forum owner, Topix, to turn over its information on the IP address of the anonymous posters, who had accused the couple of murder, rape, pedophilia, and drug dealing, among other things, completely destroying their lives, forcing them to leave town, and costing the wife her business. This is the kind of defamatory behavior Assemblyman Murray is seeking to end, not all anonymous posting. All the anonymous libelers out there should sit up and take notice of the Texas jury's award. Your anonymity is not protected.

Even the news media often requires anonymity; in such case the authors name is not attached to the article. I have experienced situations where criminals would indeed retaliate against anyone who wrote something that they considered to be derogatory. Our founding fathers required anonymity, and nothing has changed; in some cases anonymity is essential. In light of Karen Ferb's point that the accused has the ability to sue his accuser; I really believe that we currently have a working system. A law that quenched anonymity would cause more problems than it solved; the politicians should have put their efforts into a law suit as opposed to a new law.

It should never be forgotten that laws made for ones protection can also be used to to confine as well. In these times I think we have to start watching what liberties we're losing in all areas be it economic freedoms, civil liberties, privacy etc. Not that this is the case but think about how Nazi germany happened. Not overnight but by the gradual removal of privacy and circumventions to their constitution. Don't forget a law written today can be misconstrued and used for other reasons by other people in the future, what are we inviting then?

Chris, I think you have unknowingly paraphrashed Ben Franklin when he said:

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security."

Still, I do agree there is freedom of speech, and then there crime...Slander and Libel are crimes...where we draw the line between the two is certainly a debate worth having.

Simply put - unenforceable. The government should not dictate how someone behaves on a site or how a site owner handles such complaints. This is a government ploy to find a revenue source by exploiting business owners and those that have had children or family/friends that were affected by cyber bullies or trolls. And yes the are exploiting those affected by making this sound like they are trying to protect them when in reality they have no way of protecting them from the words someone can write anonymously.

This bill has nothing to do with Cyber-bullying and has everything to do with protecting Politicians from public criticism. Seriously, when was the last time you had ever seen a high school bully in a comment section on a news site tormenting his classmates? This bill was only raised because somebody posted comments about Assemblyman Dean Murray, accusing him of abusing his ex-wife. Instead of laughing it off as an offhand comment from an unreliable source, they now feel like they have to control what people post on the Internet. The Internet is a valuable resource when average people like ourselves can expose the truth about others in more powerful positions without fear of repercussion. I am sure that this standard will not be held by the pentagon when they overturn the Smith-Mundt act, then what is considered a true statement will truly be selective at best.

In response to Mr. "Smith"...Where do I begin? The very fact that you think we should be "laughing it off"...when it comes to false allegations of something as serious as domestic violence is disturbing to say the least. Perhaps you also think the 14 year old girl should "laugh it off" when an anonymous coward posts that she is preganant or has an std... do you also think the restaurant owner should just "laugh it off" when an anonymous poster spreads rumors that he has a rat and insect infestation in his kitchen? Do you think the teacher should just "laugh it off" when someone, hiding behind their anonymity, falsely accuses them of having innappropriate relations with their students? You see, Mr. "Smith"... in this day and age, these kinds of examples are happening on a regular basis and I believe we need to start trying to help the "victims" of these attacks instead of finding ways to enable the cowards who grow internet muscles by hiding behind a phony name. I wish with all my heart that we didn't have to try and legislate common decency...but in this case, I think something has to be done. I will not sit idly by as people's lives are being ruined. Rather than tossing around erroneous statements and accusations regarding the intent of the bill...perhaps you could offer up some constructive suggestions on how we could make this proposed bill better and accomplish the goal of protecting innocent victims from these malicious attacks.