New Jersey Bill Would Ban Anonymous Blog, Forum Posting

[jezebel]

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.

[bargainbloodhound]

Sooo...by this definition anyone who writes in a blog or posts on a forum is an ""Information content provider" and the blog host/forum operator is an ""Interactive computer service" operator who under this law would be required to collect the real names and addresses of all forum posters.  :

A. It's an asinine law and the boinktard who introduced the legislation obviously didn't think things through too clearly because while it would protect (to some extent) individuals/companies from having  "nasty" things written about them on a forum, the proposed law also increases the chances that the forum posters' personal information could be compromised (i.e. identity theft) by either an unscrupulous site owner or by poor security measures on the site where their information was being stored.

B.  As long as they keep the wording "false or defamatory messages" in the bill it won't stand a chance of holding up in the courts because of the words "false or".  If they drop the word false  and just go with defamatory or change it to "false and defamatory" then the bill might stand up in court...and freedom of speech will be severely curtailed.

C.  The New Jersey bill appears to violate parts of this section of US Federal law: § 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material as well as parts of the US Constitution.

D. uhh, the bill also is in direct conflict with a 2002 New Jersey Appellate Court decision which upheld anonymous posting.

E. 

[jezebel]

C.  The New Jersey bill appears to violate parts of this section of US Federal law: § 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

That law protects service providers but how about users?