TheAgitator.com
He’s Just Really Just Sick of All the Kelly Holcomb Jokes
Monday, March 10th, 2008A Kentucy lawmaker wants to ban . . . well . . .most of you.
Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.
The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.
Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.
If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.
Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying.
Would law enforcement officers be exempt?
I normally leave my name, but I’ll go anonymous this time.
I’m amazed that “online bullying” is such a pressing problem in Kentucky that lawmakers have nothing more important to worry about.
What makes the cyberbullying aspect of this so asinine is that most hosting services, let alone social networks, have strong policies against your use of their platform for behavior that is intended to be harassing of others. If the parents of a victim of cyberbullying contacted MySpace, they’d probably get the bullies’ accounts pulled within a few days.
Sounds like some wienie who doesn’t like people talking bad about him online.
Kelly Holcomb jokes? Howzabout the failed Cleveland Brown QB Tim Couch jokes?
“Tim Couch? Cleveland Browns Tim Couch? Couldn’t make the Packers and Jaguars roster Tim Couch? YOU SUCK!”
I’m glad I don’t have any more papers to publish.
I’m actually more careful to keep my online nickname clean than I am my real name, which has already been hopelessly tainted, for decades.
I’m trying to be good, here, on the Web.
Sounds like some wienie who doesn’t like people talking bad about him online.
Undoubtably what he means by “online bullying”.
Bullying my a$$. How about being able to identify the people criticizing Kentucky politicians.
“We have to protect our children.” is rapidly gaining ground on “The check is in the mail.” and “I promise not to **** in your *****.”
Umm, this is blatantly violative of the first amendment. What an asshole. And man did he suck at NFL football.
Yet another indication that social conservatives are every bit as prone to nanny-statism as the democrats are.
Ha ha! You’ll never figure out who I am! I have cleverly disguised my identity!
As a die-hard Cleveland Browns fan, I was seriously laughing when I got done with the first sentence. Thank you for the awesome headline.
I’ll bet someone used wordy dirds in a thread he particiapted in. Or got told that he was going to get his ass kicked by some interwebs billy bad-ass.
What a little bitch . . . . if I ever see him, I’m gonna smoke the mutha fucka…..
I have been accosted by a young man ,who, recently did not believe the education on which I based my opinions. He called me a liar! WHO CARES?!? If some idiot wants to abuse me, I can always assume that he is just another bottom feeder, trying to get my goad. And with seventeen years of post high school education, I should have enough self confidence to not let some little snot nose upset me! The authorities need to stay out of my e-mail and computer! I thought it was my last bastian of privacy! Can’t take kids dissing you? Then I guess you wil have to stop using the Intenet,! Especially because their parents are not watching the kiddies, very well!
“Yet another indication that social conservatives are every bit as prone to nanny-statism as the democrats are.”
Was there ever any doubt?
Wasn’t it Kentucky that, aeons ago in the BBS age, filed obscenity charges aginst a couple who ran a pr0n BBS in California - and won?
Never any lack of long noses and will to stick them in public “service”. –AGP
This is pretty classic nanny-statism. That grand old approach of “because I can think of one sort-of harmful effect of behavior X, I’m going to propose we ban behavior X outright. Who cares about the benefits of behavior X - I’m not even going to consider them!- if there’s a possible negative consequence (maybe one that hurts children), then it should be banned in all of its forms. And I don’t want to hear any crap about it being important to freedom or democracy, or to people enjoying their lives, or that the negative consequences could be dealt with in less-intrusive, more narrowly-taylored means, or I will accuse you of hating children.”
Whoever said you have to be smart ot be a good quarterback was clearly right.
This is a good bill you idiots, it is going to protect THE CHILDREN! THE CHILDREN, god dammit! Can’t you understand that this is needed. You anarchist fuckers are all the same, just because we can’t actually make this bill work doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. If we left the internet alone it would be chaos, you don’t want that do you?