Hope none of you live in New Jersey

[BushOut06]

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A1500/1327_I1.HTM

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.

[Dorian Gray]

1. I just read about this five minutes before saw this...l

Does this have any chance of actually passing?

[liberal N proud]

2. So this is how they are going to stop blogs and forums?

[BushOut06]

3. Well, it's designed to go after false statements posted online

So if I post "Bush is doing a great job", would I be in trouble? ;)

[Kber]

8. I think the "recipient" of the comment

has to prove damages first.

My concerns are
1) safety - no provisions to safeguard the information
2) privacy - no requirements to keep the information private from advertisers, solicitors
3) the chilling impact on free speech

"Damaging" speech should not be illegal if it is not libelous.

[NashVegas]

9. It's Designed to Do More Than That

Everytime you click a web link, you leave a trail in the log of a website that contains your IP address. If you think you're anonymous, you're not. It can be very time consuming, but most web users can ultimately be tracked.

This bill is about shutting down free and open sharing of communication on the WWW, not by government decree, but by making it hurt, financially.

[nylab123]

4. People like that need to get a freakin

LIFE!!!!! Somebody must have said something "offensive" about him, and he's mad because he can't figure out who said it.

[Kber]

5. Yeah - I saw this

and already wrote the sponsor who happens to be my local rep. (Lucky me, right?

Told him no way, no how was my son allowed to give anyone his real name and adderess online.

I'll let you know if I hear back.

KB

[FormerDittoHead]

6. Another example of lawmakers not understanding technology...

First off, jurisdiction. What's an "operator of a interactive computer service"? If I have a rack farm in NJ, and lease out rackspace, am I supposed to to this? BS.

Second off, due process. The bill requires no court order. (what are "reasonable procedures"?)

Third - defamatory applies to FAMOUS people. Liable is similar, but it's another thing with different legal tests.

Forth - enforcement.

Fifth - effectiveness. As if people in NJ can't access BBSs run in other states / countries...

Sixth - regulation. Last I knew, anyone with an internet connection can buy hosting and put up a BBS. Will this require every kid with an Anime BBS to get some kind of license?

edited for spelling

[Clark2008]

13. Actually, there isn't any "defamatory" statute - it's all either

liable (written) or slander (spoken). Depending upon the state, one can prove defamation occurred, but the act is either liable or slander.

Now it does make a difference if the person is a "public" vs. "private" person, therefore, anyone bashing Bush or Ann Coulter can just keep on doing it. The Republicans need to watch out more than the Dems do: they're the ones going around swiftboating private citizens who speak up against their cabal.

[Just Me]

7. I'd like to see something similar enacted as it relates to campaign ads.

At minimum, I'd like to see more candidates legally challenge ads which are either misleading or false.

[napi21]

10. Does that mean the Swift Boaters would be guilty?

All those accusations against Kerry were posted on the internet too!

[november3rd]

11. Corzine will never sign that shit

It's unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances."

1st Amendment
Constitution of the U.S.

[Kber]

12. FYI - Resonse to my e-mail

looks the the legislation is a no-go

see below:

Dear Kxxx:

Thank you for your e-mail. I understand your concerns with my recently
proposed legislation. Based on the number of negative responses I have
received about this legislation I have asked the NJ Office of Legislative
Services to prepare an opinion regarding this bill's enforceability and
constitutionality.

I did not draft this bill with intent to limit freedom of speech. The
intent behind this legislation was to bring some civility back to public
forums, in particular the forums on www.nj.com. As I receive more feedback
from, literally, around the country, it is becoming apparent that the bill
may be too broad in scope and in reality not enforceable.

As an aside, this bill was only introduced in January. There have been no
committee hearings regarding this bill and there are none scheduled to my
knowledge. I am getting inundated with responses which I will review and
use to better educate myself on the implications of this bill. If, after
reviewing all of the correspondence and the opinion of OLS, it turns out
that the bill is, in fact, unworkable, I will certainly reconsider and
withdraw it. In other words, this is not something that will happen
overnight.

I appreciate your position and I will certainly use your commentary as I
further study the unintended consequences of this legislation.

It is unfortunate, from my perspective, that while my intention here was
civility and respectfulness, it turns out that it may have gone too far.

Thank you again for your e-mail and if I can do anything for you in the
future, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Pete Biondi
Assemblyman

[bananas]

14. So which are the wild forums at nj.com?

I just took a look, seemed pretty tame to me.

[Kber]

15. Couldn't say for sure

but I hear that those Jets fans can be pretty rough (or so I was told by a die-hard Giants fan).

I didn't even know that NJ.gov had forums.