Who else is subject to the Hamiel/Turbak Blog Control Act?
Lest there are those few out there who question why they should care one iota about the Hamiel/Turbak Blog Control Act, I’d like to point out how far sweeping this measure is, and why it is so chilling in terms of government control.
I’m NOT a fan of HB 1277, which has a multitude of problems, not the least of which is that it could cause internet content providers to shut off their services to access from South Dakotans. But HB 1278 is just plain out scary in terms that providers of Internet Content would have it mandated our state government that they install tracking software.
As “the scary part” notes: Any person who allows internet posts shall keep a record of the internet-protocol logs adequate to provide identification and location of otherwise unknown, anonymous, or pseudonymous persons who leave or upload content.
How far reaching will it be? Well, let me just show you who Noel Hamiel and Nancy Turbak will mandate tracking software for….
The Mitchell Daily Republic. Noel Hamiel’s old stomping grounds as publisher will be one of the first to feel the sting of the Hamiel/Turbak Blog Control Act. This newspaper blog allows one to use a pseudonym – and under the law, that would trigger the need for mandatory compliance.
The Mitchell Avera Queen of Peace Caring Bridge Patient Journal. It’s a very simple matter to use a pseudonymous name. Because it is an on-line content provider, under the Hamiel/Turbak Blog Control Act, hospital journals that allow comments would be required under the law to submit to the draconian tracking software requirement.
The Hamiel/Turbak Blog Control Act even goes after those grieving. Because it is “on-line content” the mandatory tracking measure would also apply to the well wishes of those grieving, since this form of commerical speech in the form of posts about mourning and grief could allow pseudonyms to be used, Nancy Turbak Berry’s act which is offensive to free speech would regulate, and mandate that the Crawford Funeral Chapel in Watertown install IP Tracking software as part of their obituary comment roll.
The Hamiel/Turbak Blog Control Act is an equal opportunity government control act. Both the Pro-life website “Voices Carry” as well as the Pro-Choice “Planned Parenthood Blog” will be subjected to install monitoring software to satisfy the mandates of the Hamiel/Turbak Blog Control measure to potentially identify those who are leaving comments.
Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin, Kristi Noem, the Senate Democrats (dormant or not), and SD GOP, or anyone else’s campaign blog that allows comments? ( And you all do.) Guess what? The Hamiel/Turbak Blog Control Act will force you all to install government mandated tracking software.
And finally under the Hamiel/Turbak BCA, even the ACLU would be forced to install IP Tracking software, as if you look at their blog, they allow anonymous comments and pseudonyms.
How’s that for a chilling effect on Free Speech?
Stay tuned.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Each of the Watertown legislators are sponsoring bass-akwards bills — Turbak with this bill, and Faehn/Solum on HB 1168 to allow more of our children to drop out of school. Totally crazy.
Perhaps the backers of this bill were hoping that this would get passed by the same folks that back anti-bullying measures–based on the the “people shouldn’t do bad things to other people” initial reaction, without thinking through the consequences.
Both bills stink, because they contradict good sense. Kinda like forcing high schoolers to “volunteer” as a graduation requirement, or requiring those same teens to get a note from mom for permission to hop in a tanning bed when they could just as well sit in the sun. Oy!
Just wunnerin’: Do Detroit and Mr. Fleming and ‘berger feel like they need a shower when they agree with conservatives? (I kid! I kid!)
I think that this is an issue which cuts across party lines and ideology, and gets to the heart of government control and free speech.
I’m pretty sure the same reason that prompted McCain/Fiengold is behind this. THIN SKIN!
I mean even John Thune supported that piece of crap. It is really frustrating when Repubs who are conservative bolt because their skin is to thin.
I’m at a lost for words on this. Just when you get the feeling the tide is turning against Big Government these yahoo’s (is that libel) come up with an idea like this. I think we need to have the legislature meet for just one day a week for 6 weeks, just to eliminate extra time for them to come up with stupid and freedom infringement laws. Whats next – toilet stool monitoring to make sure you put the lid down.
SDMike
Crackerbarrel at 1 PM tomorrow in Madison at City Hall. Come and ask Fargen to defend his sponsorship of this bill and voice your concerns to Olson, Lange, and Fargen.
William. Yes, I know. Even on those (rare?) occasions when you all have your heads up your butts.
Just got off the phone with Turbak. She states her rational for supporting the bill (she couldn’t remember the number) is that it would help assign responsibility for defamatory statements. She claimed that it would not track poster’s identities. It was her contention that defamation laws that are applied to newspapers should be equally applied to the average citizen.
We learn hurtful things on the playground, but this is talking about ruining your credibility, causing you to lose a job, ruining your family life, etc. This is far beyond jabs taken. It is about your livelihood.
And Wow, if that’s the case, they can take action now. They don’t need this law.
All this law does is to place a burden on people just for having a web site.
Here is what I wrote about these two bills on Mt. Blogmore yesterday:
HB 1277 seems reasonable, assuming a court order would be required. It basically says that any online content provider (such as The Rapid City Journal) would be required to turn over their logs upon what I presume would be a court order pertaining to a libel suit. The idea here is that I say something that libels Person X, Person X goes to the Journal, they turn over the records, someone traces back to my IP, and I get sued for libel. I really don’t have a problem with this. This would be analogous to similar evidence collection in the real world. In fact I would bet that this could already be done under current law.
HB 1278 steps over the line, IMO. It basically says that a content provider (such as The Rapid City Journal) would be required, by law, to keep logs of all anonymous comments. It doesn’t specify how long these logs would need to be kept or in what detail.
This is stupid for a couple of reasons. First, this would be analogous to making the RCJ keep track of all mail it receives in case someone mails in a libelous comment. Or in a broader sense, forcing any business or private citizen to put in and maintain video cameras in case a law is broken.
The second reason this is stupid is that it is going to cost businesses or people money. The RCJ could be forced to keep some arbitrary level of logs for some arbitrary level of time, at the expense of The RCJ, for this site. Maintenance of logs costs money, especially if they need to be backed up which I suspect they would to comply with this law. Hard drive space is cheap, but logs can get big fast. Having to back up logs is very expensive. I have some experience with this. Its not free.
The third reason this law is stupid is that it is a state government trying to regulate an interstate or international business. For example I just looked up RapidCityJournal.com. It looks like it is hosted in or around Green Bay, WI. South Dakota has no jurisdiction there. Not only that but The US Constitution makes it pretty clear that this is the jurisdiction of the feds, not a state.
This bill seems overly broad, could be unconstitutional (aka expensive lawsuit for SD), and might be easily subverted.
Query — do you think if blogs didn’t raise issues of public concern and challenge people in power and the things they do on our dime — this bill would have been introduced?
Sort of like asking if you wonder if Bunker Hill would have happened, if those Lexington and Concord folks hadn’t been so pesky.
PLUS – collectively the blogosphere is a challenge to the MSM, and they thought they had title to the First Amendment. You guys are pesky, rebel squatters — regulate you, and if that doesn’t work – tax you.
–Lee Schoenbeck
PS hard to do satire at a keyboard
I wanted to be sure of my facts before making any comment.
This may come as a bit of a surprise to some, but I dislike being sued.
The First Amendment states “…or abridging the freedom of speech…” There is nothing about freedom from responsibly of your speech. These bills are not dening anyone the right to speak, just holds them accountable for their words.
The laws seems to be a bit messier when we get into Internet law. The internet is just not in South Daktoa or even the United States, It is World Wide. The host for a web site may be in Iran. Good luck on getting them to comply with this bill.
As PP has mentioned, this bill through a blanket over all Websites. While a political discuss can come up anywhere, some sites are more prone than others.
While these bills areing trying to help those who have been defamed on the internet, they are way to broad, and places a burden on bloggers and hosts, that they should not have to deal with.
Yes, Mike. It’s the classic case of blaming the victim. I’d go off on a rant about the ridiculous hoops we had to jump through just to fly to Mexico and back this year, but that would be off topic. Suffice it to say that it’s not the blog hosts’ fault that some of their commenters are imbeciles. (…adjusts tilt in tin foil hat)
I am not sure about blaming the victim.
I would say it like blaming the television for what shows that are on it.
I applaud the effort and intent of the bills, however they are going about in the wrong way. I blieve it is safe to say that page that you are reading now, was at some point transmitted over state lines, If a hight school senior in Pierre can be charge in Federal court for sending a threating instant message to a classmate sitting next to him, because the message was transmitted over state lines, then in makes since that the internet is Federal domain. Secondly, the blogger is being held responsible for someone elses words.
Shame on you Pat, for daring to interfere in the trial lawyers right to make an (obscenely huge) living. Don’t you know the Bill of Rights only applies on an as needed basis as determined by the spin of their client’s particular case?