Perspective: The problem of thin-skinned politicos

A New Jersey politician is hoping to outlaw anonymous speech on the Internet, claiming that civility must be mandatory in political debate.

State Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi, a Republican from Somerset County, recently introduced legislation that would require any "public forum Web site" to solicit the legal name and addresses of everyone who can post messages to it.

What irks Biondi, a top Republican in the state assembly, is the political free-for-all that has grown around the New Jersey Star-Ledger's discussion site at NJ.com. The site's forum for Somerset County--that is, Biondi's home district--is home to a slew of pseudonymous posts that tend to be less than kind to local politicians.

When news reports revealed that Somerset County Sheriff Frank Provenzano appropriated more than $5,000 from a petty cash account to pay for his dry cleaning, the NJ.com posts were not flattering. One message from "nodoubletalk" called Provenzano a "thief, plain and simple," while one from "xyzzy" quipped: "That's what we get for voting Republican."

Peter Biondi

Another local flap involved Stephen Obal, the Bridgewater, N.J. police chief criticized for spending two hours a day at the department's gym when he should have been at work. On NJ.com, "frenchtoast2" called Obal and the mayor "masters of deception, partners in corruption."

Others on NJ.com have taken potshots at Biondi himself, chafing at what "glennvl" labeled the assemblyman's "arrogance."

Those remarks violate Biondi's sense of political propriety. "What it's turned into is people just bashing each other, name-calling, personal issues, that kind of thing," Biondi's chief of staff, Scott Ross, told me on Friday. "It's all anonymous. Nobody knows who's calling who what."

The intent of the legislation is "to try to bring back a little civility back into that kind of thing," Ross said. "It's degenerating into name-calling. It's a local problem we're having, in several cities."

Sage advice from Jefferson?
It's true that some of the comments in the Somerset County and Hillsborough County forums are impolite. Many are impolitic. Others are helpful, offering other county residents advice about road closings, good brunch locations, and where to find bars with karaoke nights.

In other words, NJ.com is your average Internet discussion site with a lively community that's grown over time. Sometimes it's useful, and sometimes it's straightforward politician-bashing--which serves a useful purpose of its own.

Targeting Net-anonymity

A New Jersey state assemblyman has introduced a bill targeting anonymous speech on Internet discussion groups. Here's an excerpt:

"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 Web site 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...

"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 Web site."

That doesn't mean Biondi's bill is a good idea. It isn't.

Biondi wants to require that anyone "who posts written messages on a public forum Web site" be identified "by a legal name and address" that is either disclosed publicly or kept on file. The measure also outlaws "false" posts on the Web and permits anyone upset by such posts to recover punitive damages and attorney's fees.

This, of course, violates the First Amendment. In the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court said that false statements about politicians were permitted, as long as they weren't made with "actual malice." Anonymous speech is also protected, going back to the Federalist Papers and the 1735 trial of printer John Peter Zenger.

Bondi's bill also follows the unfortunate precedent of the recent federal law I wrote about in a column in January that criminalizes posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing one's true identity. (That law is being challenged in court by TheAnonymousEmail.com.)

A third problem with Bondi's approach is that by requiring people to type in their "legal names" and addresses, legitimate political criticism will be squelched. (That may be precisely the point.) Local politics is particularly nasty, and reprisals are hardly unknown.

More broadly, though, politics is no place for the thin-skinned. Civility enforced by law may sound pleasant enough--but rude, insulting, and downright nasty debate has characterized American politics since the very beginning.

In a 1799 letter, Thomas Jefferson wrote that he had "been a constant butt for every shaft of calumny which malice and falsehood could form, and the presses, public speakers, or private letters disseminate."

Another letter that Jefferson sent to a judge six years later said: "You have indeed received the federal unction of lying and slandering. But who has not? Who will ever again come into eminent office, unanointed with this chrism?"

Today's politicians are not of Jefferson's stature. That should be all the more reason to preserve our right to criticize them freely, thoroughly and anonymously.

Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.

More Perspectives

[roy cactus]

what would this accomplish

why would they want my name and address? do they plan on sending someone to my home to rough me up over my political opinions? i don't get it.

what if i'm not even from the country and want to run my mouth a little about something i read in the news that i am mostly ignorant about? if the board cares they can moderate and delete the message right?

[Earl Benser]

Biondi should focus on....

.... eliminating the political dorks which provide the fodder for less
than gentle messages. So far, the 'victims' all seem to be totally
deserving of the scorn provided.

Old saying - can't stand the heat??? Get out of the kitchen!!!!

Another old saying - politicians are politician for two simple
reasons, money andor power. That explains it all.

[Remo_Williams]

Unsurprising.

Biondi has no character, or he'd act like an adult and shrug it off. He's a NJ politician, he should be ashamed of whining.

[203129769353146603573853850462]

Selective enforcement

Don't anyone think that if you could slip "under the radar" of this proposed law (using fake info, etc) that you personally are safe from reprisal.

This proposal simply opens the way for selective enforcement, which is another name for tyranny.

[sandkicker]

Dissent

Politicians would love nothing better than stiffle dissent from a unworthy populace. They(politico's) or at least some of them feel, they can do no wrong (above the law) and dissent usurps that standing.
When those in power use public monies for private use, there should be no recourse other than immediate dismissal from office.
"we the people" guide the principles of those who govern, not the other way around. Muzzling dissent is exactly what Hitler managed to do, and hopefully it will not come to that in this country.

[ORinSF]

Fairness doctrine redux?

It's really too bad that it's a Republican promoting this sort of thing, though I suppose any politician might be tempted. It's an idea as absurd as the Fairness Doctrine and McCain-Feingold. Free speech means free speech -- it does not mean "free to the extent that we are comfortable with it".

The most important question is not to figure out what is acceptable speech and pass laws based on that. The question is whether there should be speech laws at all. I say no...and I believe the First Amendment says that, too.

If the Star-Ledger wants to enforce some "civility" at their site, they are entirely within their rights. Mr. Biondi is not.

[greensmile]

biondi only compounds his own problems

Now in addition to being way to sensitive to criticism to be a real american politician, he will have to endure the remarks that he is a blithering idiot about constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech. Such remarks could no longer be seen as uncalled for or libelous because he has demonstrated a factual basis for them. If the Republican party has not stopped being the party that sticks up for basic constitutional rights, it had better stop being the party that sticks up for Biondi.

Here we go again...

Aside from the lack of jurisdiction in terms of enforcing this ridiculous legislation what is to stop any service provider from simply setting up shop somewhere else?

Perhaps as many people as possible from as many jurisdictions as possible should send Representative Biondi anonymous -- never mind pseudonymous -- letters, telling him what a pathetic jackass he is, or constitutional toilet paper with which to wipe his hemorrhoid-ridden ass. Using the United States Postal Service.

If this ridiculous law passes, I would be more than happy to host any New Jersey community bulletin board on Annoy.com. With specific templates designed to annoy Representative Biondi. Anonymously.

[seanheretic]

irony thy name is wing nut

odd i have been debating with so called conservatives
on the news message lines for some time.....and it
seems to me that the ratio of insulting and demeaning
talk has been led by the republicans and their minions,
i.e. the freepers...have threatened to kill liberals, made
death threats against the clintons and anyone else who
that disagrees with them...so this may back fire the
repugnantcans...

[MadKaugh]

Bondi's bad joke is unenforceable

You missed a major factor; Bondi's 'legislation that would require any "public forum Web site" to solicit the legal name and addresses of everyone who can post messages to it' is unenforcable. If his dinky jurisdiction requires it, you move the public forum website out of his jurisdiction. Hey, it worked for the offshore casinos.

MadKaugh

[MadKaugh]

Bondi's bad joke is unenforceable

You missed a major factor; Bondi's 'legislation that would require any "public forum Web site" to solicit the legal name and addresses of everyone who can post messages to it' is unenforcable. If his dinky jurisdiction requires it, you move the public forum website out of his jurisdiction. Hey, it worked for the offshore casinos.

MadKaugh