First what?

[Martin]

This is relevant to anyone here who operates a message board in the US. Gotta love "smaller government"...

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

[RagnarokDensetsu]

Thank goodness for Canada!

I love when stupid laws don't apply.

[TruthElixirX]

Oh how enjoyable. I'm sure this will end up being a real problem on boards with teenagers on them.

[MrNase]

Does this apply to US-citizens only or does this even apply to people who post on an American message board or something?


And: Being a customer of Jelsoft, by posting here they know my identity. Do I still have to leave my personal information everytime I post?

[MGM]

You all suck.

-Bara Kathawa

MGM out

[Wheels]

A couple of the hosts we used sent that link to us. One host is even putting a temp hold on new clients who want forums on their site.

[DirectPixel]

This is relevant to anyone here who operates a message board in the US. Gotta love "smaller government"...

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html

Of course, the catch to that is the "proving your identity" part. Given that you're running a message board with a registration system in place (and given that posting is off-limits to guests), it is probably enough.

Courts of law decide wordings like this by essentially taking a look at the cost and feasability versus the marginal gains of implementing such measures. For practically any website online, setting up a system to 100% confirm the identity of an individual is prohibitively costly and for the most part, an expense that does not have much return.

So the rule is, as long as you have some form of registration system set up before a user is allowed to post his/her opinions on your website, you should be fine.

(And just to cover my butt, please don't take this as official legal advice. If you seriously have concerns, hire a lawyer.)

[WurkAnimal]

I'm glad this doesn't appy to people in the United Kingdom, if it did, all of my Internet friends would go to jail :P

[Colin F]

I agree with Alex.

I also, after looking at the thread for the third time, figured out what the title meant

[Martin]

I agree with Alex.

I also, after looking at the thread for the third time, figured out what the title meant

I don't think this is going to be a huge negative legal effect on running a board, but if some whiner gets mad because someone repeatedly calls them fat (or some other insult) on our individual forums and decides to make a federal case out of it, it could be a PITA.

[Bema Jinn]

Oh great, yes another way to get someone sued :P

I'm actually starting to get concerned about the so called "free world" now.

[Wayne Luke]

Its doubtful that when challenged it will actually pass constitutional muster. Just because a law has been passed doesn't mean it will be legal. The fact that it had to be buried in a larger bill as a slice of pork shows how little merit it has on its own.

When it does get challenged, it looks like something the ACLU will pick up on First Amendment grounds.

[Quillz]

I doubt the law will even really be enforced in the first place. Ultimately, it's seems to be a First Amendment violation, and I imagine it will eventually be vetoed.

[Wayne Luke]

Can't be vetoed... The president already signed it into law. A new law has to be written by Congress to overturn it or the Courts need to invalidate it. I suspect it will be the later. They have been invalidating a lot of Congress' work lately.