Topic: Who are you..
Lynann's photo
Mon 12/22/08 07:11 PM
Is there value in being able to post anonymously? If you think you are by the way you are wrong.

So, would you post here if you were required to use your real name?

I've asked this before on some other threads. When I saw this article it made me curious.

Would you comment or post on the net if you had to reveal your real name on each post? Would a requirement to reveal your name make you less likely to post?

Monday, December 22, 2008

TWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) -- State Rep. Steve Hartgen, a former newspaper publisher, says he might introduce a bill to force people to use their real names when posting comments on the Internet.

"A modest proposal that simply required the posting of a true name with respect to comments and blogs would go a long way," Hartgen, R-Twin Falls, told the Times-News, adding that the absence of such a provision "discourages people from participating in civil life. To me, it reflects a coarsening and cheapening of public debate, which I think is not healthy for Idaho."

Hartgen, who was appointed to the Legislature in July and won election in November, is a former publisher and managing editor of the Times-News but hasn't been affiliated with the newspaper since 2005.

His suggestion has prompted an outcry from Web users, who argue that it would chill the spontaneous exchange of ideas on the Internet.

"Here's a reality check for Steve: A lot of people use pseudonyms because they face employment or other personal repercussions for making their real opinions public, particularly if they criticize the powerful," wrote Seattle resident Dave Neiwert, a former Times-News staffer from the 1980s and now a freelancer and blogger at Crooks and Liars. "I know you know all about that, too, Steve. Taking away that cover will remove valuable voices and important perspectives from the public dialogue."

Neiwert told the newspaper the bill likely wouldn't withstand a court challenge.

"It's just true silliness," he said. "Most of the public is capable of discerning the stuff between an anonymous commentator and the stuff from a serious journalist."

Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, said the state shouldn't intervene. People who are concerned about comments on the Internet should contact the company running the offending Web site, she said.

"It just seems to me that ought to be a policy of the publication," she said.

Hartgen said he might propose a bill that relies on the state's Consumer Protection Act, now aimed at protecting consumers and businesses from deceptive trade practices, to require people to identify themselves.

bradlyy's photo
Mon 12/22/08 07:13 PM
I dont have a problem with usein my real name

MirrorMirror's photo
Mon 12/22/08 07:17 PM

Is there value in being able to post anonymously? If you think you are by the way you are wrong.

So, would you post here if you were required to use your real name?

I've asked this before on some other threads. When I saw this article it made me curious.

Would you comment or post on the net if you had to reveal your real name on each post? Would a requirement to reveal your name make you less likely to post?

Monday, December 22, 2008

TWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) -- State Rep. Steve Hartgen, a former newspaper publisher, says he might introduce a bill to force people to use their real names when posting comments on the Internet.

"A modest proposal that simply required the posting of a true name with respect to comments and blogs would go a long way," Hartgen, R-Twin Falls, told the Times-News, adding that the absence of such a provision "discourages people from participating in civil life. To me, it reflects a coarsening and cheapening of public debate, which I think is not healthy for Idaho."

Hartgen, who was appointed to the Legislature in July and won election in November, is a former publisher and managing editor of the Times-News but hasn't been affiliated with the newspaper since 2005.

His suggestion has prompted an outcry from Web users, who argue that it would chill the spontaneous exchange of ideas on the Internet.

"Here's a reality check for Steve: A lot of people use pseudonyms because they face employment or other personal repercussions for making their real opinions public, particularly if they criticize the powerful," wrote Seattle resident Dave Neiwert, a former Times-News staffer from the 1980s and now a freelancer and blogger at Crooks and Liars. "I know you know all about that, too, Steve. Taking away that cover will remove valuable voices and important perspectives from the public dialogue."

Neiwert told the newspaper the bill likely wouldn't withstand a court challenge.

"It's just true silliness," he said. "Most of the public is capable of discerning the stuff between an anonymous commentator and the stuff from a serious journalist."

Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, said the state shouldn't intervene. People who are concerned about comments on the Internet should contact the company running the offending Web site, she said.

"It just seems to me that ought to be a policy of the publication," she said.

Hartgen said he might propose a bill that relies on the state's Consumer Protection Act, now aimed at protecting consumers and businesses from deceptive trade practices, to require people to identify themselves.
noway Thats crazynoway

no photo
Mon 12/22/08 07:22 PM
Edited by quiet_2008 on Mon 12/22/08 07:22 PM
no I would walk away from the internet first

the Russian mafia is always crawling these forums tryin to get personal info

Moondark's photo
Mon 12/22/08 07:44 PM
Edited by Moondark on Mon 12/22/08 07:45 PM
Yes and no.

Yes, because I'm not ashamed of my views. In the past, on sites that started out with real names and latter adapted to screen names, I did.

But in the past decade or so, I've come across more and more instances of people people disagreeing with our own government online and then discovering they have been investigated by our 'homeland security' for having spoken out against the government. There were numerous cases of it during Bush's second run for the white house.

8 years ago, I would say what ever I wanted and not worry about it. Now, after what the Bush administration has done, I would be highly distrusting about anything that would force me to chatter online only under my own name. I would believe that it would be tracked and used against people.

I often use a quote from a movie: "The people should never fear their government. The Government should fear it's people." It's just a quote from V for Vendetta. But if I had it as a signature line on anything only under my real name, I would probably find myself under investigation.

I'm already marked for 'random' checks at the airports when I fly. It isn't random when it happens 100% of the time. Someone even admitted to me that the checks are not random. But they didn't know the criteria used to determine the checks.

no photo
Mon 12/22/08 08:01 PM
I often use a quote from a movie: "The people should never fear their government. The Government should fear it's people." It's just a quote from V for Vendetta. But if I had it as a signature line on anything only under my real name, I would probably find myself under investigation.


a revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having

no photo
Mon 12/22/08 08:03 PM

..perhaps he would be best working on those right to work laws they have in that state..because they suck and work to benefit the insurance companies not the employees..i hope he reads this because he's a dumbazz
and tombraider is my real name ..o.k its not and theres not a damn thing he can do about it ...:laughing:

Lynann's photo
Mon 12/22/08 09:18 PM
Right to work laws are not what they seem.

They do not benefit workers.

More accurately named they might be

The right to bend over...

no photo
Mon 12/22/08 10:05 PM
NO AND HELL NO