Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

NY Legislature Introduces Bills to Curtail Anonymous Online Commenting

By Laura Brookover & Inside Privacy on May 25, 2012
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Two bills have been proposed in the New York State Legislature that aim to de-anonymize online commenting.

The proposed Internet Protection Act — introduced in the identical bills S.6779 and A.8688 —would amend New York civil rights law to require a website administrator upon request to “remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

An anonymous poster is defined as one who “posts a message on a web site . . . where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.”  As drafted, “anonymous poster” would include all commenters, regardless of whether they are logged into an account or whether they have already posted under a first and last name. 

Assemblyman Jim Conte, a sponsor of the legislation, has explained that it “seeks to combat cyber-bullying by allowing the victim of an anonymous Website posting to request that the post be removed if the anonymous source is unwilling to attach his or her name to it.”

Tim Wu, a Columbia law professor, has called the legislation “an obvious first amendment violation.”  Critics cite a 1960 Supreme Court case, Talley v. California, that struck down a Los Angeles ordinance requiring handbill distributors to print the author and distributor of a handbill on its cover.   The Talley Court observed that “there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified,” explaining that “identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance.”

Senator Thomas O’Mara, sponsor of the Senate version, has responded to criticisms of the legislation’s constitutionality.  “I certainly didn’t introduce the legislation with the thought that it was violative of the First Amendment.  We’re certainly looking forward to any and all input.”

  • Posted in:
    Technology and AI
  • Blog:
    Inside Privacy
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo