11th January 2006, 7:00 PM
It's a slippery slope! Today you have to reveal your identity when you annoy, tomorrow you have to expose your internal organs just to get into your heavily guarded bed and can only speak when they remove the lock from your mouth zipper, AND THERE ISN'T A DERN THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!
http://frameofmind.ytmnd.com/
...
That's a non-sequiter, as is the vast majority of "slippery slope" logic. However, Darunia, what the heck? You find it horrible to have laws ordering you to frickin' buckle up, but this doesn't bother you at all?
The fact is, people should be able to leave inflamatory remarks without having to disclose their identity because there is a serious safety risk involved. Now, you may say "they made inflamatory remarks!", but so what? Annoying just for the sake of annoying is stupid, and petty, and really people should learn better. It's also likely true that childish people do it because they won't get in trouble. Still, such a law is idiotic. If a web site in particular demands one reveal their identity to join, that's fine. A number of forums are starting to instigate this policy. However, to require it by law is, well, the government's job is NOT to mandate polite behavior. There's also the blatant possiblity of abuse of such a law. What constitutes annoyance? A lot could! What if someone shows up at a homeopathy message board and decides to mention the lack of evidence that such things work, suggesting scientifically valid treatments instead. Such a person would be seen as a "troll" to the vast majority, perhaps everyone, at that board. If that person reveals their identity as required by law, stalkers! Someone should have the benefit of being able to converse anonymously!
http://frameofmind.ytmnd.com/
...
That's a non-sequiter, as is the vast majority of "slippery slope" logic. However, Darunia, what the heck? You find it horrible to have laws ordering you to frickin' buckle up, but this doesn't bother you at all?
The fact is, people should be able to leave inflamatory remarks without having to disclose their identity because there is a serious safety risk involved. Now, you may say "they made inflamatory remarks!", but so what? Annoying just for the sake of annoying is stupid, and petty, and really people should learn better. It's also likely true that childish people do it because they won't get in trouble. Still, such a law is idiotic. If a web site in particular demands one reveal their identity to join, that's fine. A number of forums are starting to instigate this policy. However, to require it by law is, well, the government's job is NOT to mandate polite behavior. There's also the blatant possiblity of abuse of such a law. What constitutes annoyance? A lot could! What if someone shows up at a homeopathy message board and decides to mention the lack of evidence that such things work, suggesting scientifically valid treatments instead. Such a person would be seen as a "troll" to the vast majority, perhaps everyone, at that board. If that person reveals their identity as required by law, stalkers! Someone should have the benefit of being able to converse anonymously!
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)