NJ Bill Prohibits Anonymous Posts on Forums...

[Pathetic]

Makes certain operators of interactive computer services and Internet service providers liable to persons injured by false or defamatory messages posted on public forum websites.


ASSEMBLY, No. 1327


STATE OF NEW JERSEY

212th LEGISLATURE



PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2006 SESSION







Sponsored by:

Assemblyman PETER J. BIONDI

District 16 (Morris and Somerset)









SYNOPSIS

Makes certain operators of interactive computer services and Internet service providers liable to persons injured by false or defamatory messages posted on public forum websites.



CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT

As introduced.





An Act concerning the posting of certain Internet messages and supplementing chapter 38A of Title 2A of the New Jersey Statutes.



Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:



1. As used in this act:

"Information content provider" means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

"Interactive computer service" means any information system, service, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides service to the Internet.

"Internet" means the international computer network of both federal and non-federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

"Internet service provider" or "provider" means any person, business or organization qualified to do business in this State that provides individuals, corporations, or other entities with the ability to connect to the Internet through equipment that is located in this State.

"Operator" means any person, business or organization qualified to do business in this State that operates an interactive computer service.



2. The operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish, maintain and enforce a policy to require any information content provider who posts written messages on a public forum website either to be identified by a legal name and address, or to register a legal name and address with the operator of the interactive computer service or the Internet service provider through which the information content provider gains access to the interactive computer service or Internet, as appropriate.



3. An operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.



4. Any person who is damaged by false or defamatory written messages that originate from an information content provider who posts such messages on a public forum website may file suit in Superior Court against an operator or provider that fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required pursuant to section 2 of P.L. , c. (C.) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), and may recover compensatory and punitive damages and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, cost of investigation and litigation from such operator or provider.



5. This act shall take effect on the 90th day following enactment.





STATEMENT



This bill would require an operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish, maintain and enforce a policy requiring an information content provider who posts messages on a public forum website either to be identified by legal name and address or to register a legal name and address with the operator or provider prior to posting messages on a public forum website.

The bill requires an operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.

In addition, the bill makes any operator or Internet service provider liable for compensatory and punitive damages as well as costs of a law suit filed by a person damaged by the posting of such messages if the operator or Internet service provider fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required by section 2 of the bill.

[ninjalooter1701]

Dufrel will get a kick out of your title.

[Francois Cellier]

The title looks reasonable enough to me:

Originally Posted by Pathetic

The bill requires an operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.

In addition, the bill makes any operator or Internet service provider liable for compensatory and punitive damages as well as costs of a law suit filed by a person damaged by the posting of such messages if the operator or Internet service provider fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required by section 2 of the bill.

The Government has misgivings about the uncontrolled information flow on the Internet. This is clearly an attempt at making it more difficult in the future to operate websites like P&CA. If no such websites were to exist ... then the Government could spread lies even more easily and more successfully.

Thanks Pathetic for sharing this article with us.

[suedanim]

This is why I post things whenever I find them that have been sanitized off the net by either the government or the mainstream news media, such as those Fox video's I posted here recently.

All the information may not be true, may not presently be believed to be pertinent to a given subject such as 9/11, but I think its important for people to view, store and come back to when or if it does become pertinent.

I am amazed at the news stories or policies and briefs placed on either government sites or news media and just vanish, not even available in their own archives.

PC & A provides a means to dessiminate information. Its one of the things that drew me to it. Francois, Fred, Kramsret and there used to be a poster to this board that never comes around anymore (name????) .... all have been very good at putting up information that you might not see in your daily surfing.

I learned during the aftermath of 9/11 to seek out, to widen the net of information gathering. I was one of those people who really relied on mainstream press way too much. As the media shut down information, you really have no other choice but to glean info from alternative sites.

[cwinton]

Well, I'm concerned about a few things.

Firstly, I encourage being whom you are and not hiding behind false ID's -- speaking your mind -- and not being hated for it -- especially being wrong, and being able to openly discuss the 'evolutionary-opinions' process without blame/shame/discrimination ... which is hate.

That said, this bill, as written, I'm afraid, just shame/blames individuals for offering their thoughts. Maybe not ... but I'm concerned about it.

With such wording, an internet website forum could be taken off-line due to free expression of opinions.

"Defamation' is a strange word that wreaks of religion.

I'm proud of the NJ Legislator for making this effort though. Clean it up a bit, and this proposal could do much good ... like removing hateful religious supremacy websites that promote TERROR and SHAME and BLAME by discriminating against people for :

looks
crotch and crotch-usage
education
marriage-status
so-called 'profanity'
jobs/career
etc.

So, I'm not sure exactly how this law/bill should be worded, but it's a good start, as long as discriminating by hateful religious supremacy TERRORISTS is the TARGET and not the 'protected.'

[Francois Cellier]

It's a slippery slope, CW. Who is going to decide which defamation is okay and which other isn't? The U.S. should be proud of its 1[sup:0d3ecd9214]st[/sup:0d3ecd9214] amendment. Many otherwise advanced European countries don't have anything comparable to it. Watering it down, and be it only by a tad, is giving the pinky to the devil.

[Dufrel]

Dufrel will get a kick out of your title.

I did chuckle.