New York To Ban Free Speech?

constitution 2 SC New York to ban free speech?

Two New York legislators have taken a page from the playbook of aspiring internet regulator Joe Lieberman by sponsoring a bill that would make the posting of anonymous comments illegal. The bill written by Republican State Senators Dean Murray and Thomas O’Mara states:

“A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his…name to the post and confirms that his…IP address, legal name and home address are accurate. All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address for such removal requests clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted.” 

The stated purpose of the Act is “…to amend the civil rights law, in relation to protecting a person’s right to know who is behind an anonymous internet posting.” Apparently, it has now become a civil right to know what your neighbor thinks of Barack Obama, the United Nations, or Jerry’s House of Pancakes.

According to Murray and O’Mara, passage of the Act would “…cut down on cyberbullying, protect small businesses such as restaurants from unfounded, negative reviews and, naturally, protect politicians from baseless, derogatory attacks during campaign time.” As one wag added, “I’m sure that last concern is only an afterthought.”

The contempt displayed by the nation’s politicos for the constitutionally protected rights of the American public seems to increase with each passing year. Some believe pressure brought to bear by Tea Parties or the occasional primary upset of a longtime incumbent will sort out political hacks like Murray and O’Mara. But so arrogant are these self-important law makers that even decisions of the Supreme Court are blissfully ignored.

“Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind,” wrote Justice Hugo Black in 1960. Thirty five years later, the Court found unconstitutional an Ohio statute demanding campaign literature include the name and address of the individual issuing it.

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”  Even if State Senators Murray and O’Mara should find sufficient, elected horse’s behinds to turn this asinine bill into law, it will not pass constitutional muster. Yet, self-serving politicians continue the assault; for as with so many constitutional rights and liberties, they find free speech a dangerous and inconvenient threat to their authority.

It has been noted that if this law had been in effect 230 years ago, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay “…would have been forced to disclose their real names…” on the Federalist Papers, perhaps preventing the works of “Publius” being written.  But then Senators Murray and O’Mara would not have considered that much of a loss–certainly not as important as preventing the cyberbullying of Senators Murray and O’Mara!

Related posts:

  1. The New York Times Wants To Suppress Free Speech Of Other Corporations The New York Times ran a lead editorial today entitled…
  2. Free Speech Threatened In Sergeant’s Discharge Sergeant Gary Stein’s fight to stay in the Marine Corps…

Do you have $25,000 in your IRA or 401(k)? This "Loophole" in IRS Code lets you move your savings to gold ... get this NO-COST Info Guide >

10 comments to New York To Ban Free Speech?

  • Jeffrey Hardin

    I can't even begin to express the frustration that myself and other Conservative Christians are enduring, because of the simple fact, that this imbecile President we are suffering is not going to be impeached and may even win another term by either cheating and or our elected officials refusing to do a damn thing about making him answer to the corruption he has committed by his lawlessness. We are what we eat, and we are whom we place in office, they are an extension of our votes, of our beliefs. And what does our watered down conservative base do, they support yet another watered down CONSERVATIVE & an added insult, a cultist "Romney". If your voting for him, then you are no Conservative, He is a Liberal who supports gay marriage and is pro choice, anti gun, and big government and I am no damn fool to think other wise, and you will also have set aside your Christian beliefs, ethics and your Christian principles, you have too in order to support him, there is absolutely no other way you can have or be both and I've scripture to prove just that? You are either Hot, or Cold, you cannot be lukewarm as a Christian period, and tolerate such a person! Many, and I mean millions of us Southerners on the Bible Belt, in my South, will not vote for Romney period. We will not sacrifice by being tolerant to his cultism, our beliefs and faith in our YHVH, and that's exactly what we will be doing if we were to vote for him. And no, I'm not ashamed, and no, my not voting for Romulus is not, I repeat, is not a vote for Obama, I'm not voting for that cultist either. I and many others like me will work on a local level to get as many Conservative Christians in office to fight back against Obama if he wins, or to fight against Romney if he wins. We will also commit ourselves to a write in for Gingrich…Say what you will of the man, but one constant in him will be his fight against both Obama's far left Liberal policies and Romney's left leaning policies…Thar's the gist of it, that's that!

    • guest

      Jeffrey Hardin
      It is stupid comments like you made about Romney that show your ignorance!Be positive NOT NEGATIVE.

      • Guest

        Jeffrey Hardin, I pray that there really aren't many people that think as foolishly as you, for that kind of thinking is what will put Obama back in office. We need to stand together!

    • Bay0Wulf

      Well, by and large I agree with you and would love to have a different option and on the lower level many are working toward getting a seriously more conservative base going through controlling the the Congress and have begun to make a difference. "Tea Party" style conservatives only got started a couple short elections ago and they mostly came up with excellent candidates and have put a lot of pressure on the thought processes of Our Government but they need a little more time to gain power and momentum.

      Mitt is a crummy choice. As far as I can see so far he's barely distinguishable from Obama but … he IS different and if we ever needed a "Change" it's NOW. I'm guessing you are letting your religion and faith call the shots but I believe that we are better without Obama at almost any cost. I believe that we need to get rid of Obama and look to 2016 and hope Rand or Christie or someone will be willing to take on Mitt as an incumbent … if Mitt really does not do the job. I can say almost for a certainty that I doubt we can survive another year of Obama or his Administration.

      Here's something to chew on, there are … 3? Supreme Court Justices over 75. The next sitting President is likely to choose as many as 3 Justices. Do you think we could survive another Kagan or Sotomayor? (Sotomayor has been better than I expected however)

      You can believe that your vote shouldn't go to either of the two guys in the lead position. You can believe that voting for a serious long shot is not "voting" for Obama. I hate it when I do it but I vote "against" people much more often than I vote "for" … consider the good that your negative vote could do.

      • I most certainly understand what your saying and I do agree that we need change, and desperately so. My faith, my personal relationship with YHVH always is and will always be before all else, it has too. Politically, hand in hand with my religious views, are that when all else fails us in this election, if we have, and vote responsibly, we can keep Obama in check and we will also be busy doing the same with Romney. Not only is Mitt a danger to us politically, he is even more of a threat to us as a cultist. If we legitimize him, we legitimize all of him, from his birth to the present, and don't forget, his Mormonism will have precedence above and before all things, including this Nation, it has to, in order to receive his kingdom, his own universe and earth like planet to rule over, to be a god of, he has to do as the Church of Latter Day Saints requires him to do and this Nation, our religion, and economy will be based on what his church dictates, not our Constitution
        He will come after our guns, and will accept gay unions or same sex marriages, he will support pro choice and he has promised to come down here in the South and ban our Confederate flag. Now, for a man who preaches small government, he sure is invoking Big Brother to make the statement he will over ride a States Sovereign rights to it's citizens. We have already voted on a State level and compromised with the NAACP, who turned right around with the racist Al Sharpton once again leading a lost cause against the Stars & Bars. The Stars and Bars has nothing to do with Slavery nor racism, it has everything to do with race baiting from the blacks like Jackson and Sharpton, and Romney will see to it, that he suffers us Southerners, he can't stand us atoll. We will not be kow towed by the RNC or the elitist GOP and especially Romney. We just cannot do it! Our Hopes are that Newt can force a brokered Convention, and I believe he will stay the course until then…
        .

  • whoanelly44

    The stated purpose of the Act is “…to amend the civil rights law,in relation to protecting a person’s right to know who is behind an anonymous internet posting.”

    All well and good, but who will protect the poster/blogger who happens to have thoughts and opinions that differ from, let's say, the union thugs. The vicious democrat-led violence against supporters of Scott Walker and the other Republicans in Wisconsin is evidence that such legislation is really ill-advised.

    How can these sponsors, Murray and O'Mara call themselves Republicans?

  • Elleryqueen

    To put it simply, both of these, uh, gentlemen are full of horse hocky.

    • ItsJo

      BTW: In controlling the net, Obama erases ALL info about what he is doing Against the American people. He gets to
      control ANY AND ALL NEGATIVE COMMENTS, JUST AS HIS LAPDOG MEDIA HAVE CONTROLLED ANYTHING NEGATIVE BEING SAID, WRITTEN OR EXPOSED ABOUT HIM. THEY ARE COMPLICIT IN BRINGING OUR REPUBLIC DOWN, AS HE FEELS WE "ARE AN ARROGANT NATION", THAT HE/MICHELLE/HIS A.G.HOLDER/& THE REST OF THE DEM THUGS/RADICALS ACTUALLY DISLIKE. THEY ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN THEIR AGENDA & IDEOLOGY OF DEFEATING CAPITALISM AND TURNING US INTO "AMERIKA, THE NEW MUSLIM/ISLAMIC NATION"
      THAT REDISTRIBUTES OUR TAX DOLLARS TO WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE.

  • ItsJo

    The "Thug Dems" are at it again. Not long ago, Obama said: "There is a lot of misinformation on the internet, and we need to Make Sure that the Right Information gets out"……gee, do you think he wants only HIS information to go out to the masses? YES. Just as Hillary had suggested the same "internet CONTROL, a few years ago". These crooked, lying, cheating Dems, want to Control the Net, Just as Obama's Pal Hugo Chavez did in Venezeula, when he removed ALL public media the people had, and ONLY broadcast HIS speeches, news, etc. THIS, IS JUST WHAT OBAMA & HIS RADICALS WANT-CONTROL OF THE SHEEPLE.

    • No one special

      Vote for the Independent Party; Dr. Laurie Roth.

      Read about her and her integrity, her will to bring
      America out of this mess.

      As for Obama ..he can't be impeached not being a legal president.
      He is a spy, and therefore, deserves the rewards of all good spies..

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>