Fish in a Barrel

Today's post is located on my commentary and opinion section. [Link]

Ides -1

In a follow-up from the March 6th post, it appears Assemblyman Biondi's office has been deluged with complaints because of his cockeyed proposal [Link]. It's good to see so much attention drawn to this. It's funny to read about how his office responded to the influx of correspondence. If more people reacted this way when lawmakers proposed stupid measures, society would be much better off.

Ides -2

I haven't been posting much lately. Politics as usual hasn't gotten me too riled up about anything. I was on the fence on the Dubai ports deal but probably leaning in favor of it, not that my opinion would have changed anything. I think opening up to the UAE would be better than shutting them out and also feel the media was hoping for a story like this that had the potential to split conservatives up. It seems like they pant like a dog whenever they see story that might pit Republicans against each other. Regardless, I think it looks bad when we don't embrace another country when they want to expand in a capitalistic venture. Yes, ports are important but I really think if those opposed to the deal who were worried about national security they should look to the land and not the sea. Controlling the southern border deserves more attention and manpower than worrying about who owns the company that manages some ports which are staffed with American workers.

Mr. X

Slashdot posted news story today about a bill introduced by NJ Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi in that would essentially ban anonymous posts on online forums. [Link]

Although unlikely to get anywhere, it should still be a concern that some elected officials think like this. But, before we dismiss this idiocy, one must remember that all stupid laws and current infringements on rights must have gotten their start somewhere as a pipe dream in someone's mind. If someone else revives this or introduces similar legislation somewhere else, I can see "online forums" becoming all encompassing and covering all web sites that allow for posts. I can see it in writing now: "...all free speech must be directly traced to the individual from whom it originated."

Sure the bill might seem like it has good intent - referring to posts that may be defamatory or false - but this, to me, seems like it only applies to an extremely small percentage of posts I've seen online. Plus, these forums usually have tools to remove unwanted content or pass the posts through a moderator for approval. We cannot let the actions of a few dictate the policy for the many.

On the plus side, if the bill goes through, we have a few companies right here in the good ol' USA that are experts in managing online content and reporting the miscreants to the proper authorities.