Utah Targeting VPN Users Trying to Avoid Invasive Online Identification "Age Verification", Bu-Bye USMB

[citygator]

Isnt that just for porn site age verification? USMB, twitter, and other sites dont use age verification. Or is it for all social media sites?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes.

That's what happens in REAL LIFE.

So responsible speech changes depending on who is in office?

 

[airplanemechanic]

Ah yes, all these people saying that advocating violence is "freedom of speech" and then cheering on Trump as he tries to take down someone who posted a picture of two numbers that potentially means advocating violence.

Funny how when it's your side doing things, it's fine, when it's the other side doing the same thing, it needs to be stamped out.

To "86" someone has long been known in the military as to eliminate them.

In the military, to "86" someone or something means to remove, eliminate, get rid of, or dispose of them

It was a call to violence and everyone knows it. Just because you used rocks in the sand doesn't change the underlying message.

Would you be ok if Trump had posted rocks in the sand "8646"? I bet not.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Isnt that just for porn site age verification? USMB, twitter, and other sites dont use age verification. Or is it for all social media sites?

Porn site age verification has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge because it violates privacy laws. LA had a law where no porn sites worked unless you verified your age which meant inputting your personal data. I knew that was illegal and I was right. It could easily be bypassed by simply using a VPN.

Louisiana’s age-check law for social media is unconstitutional, federal judge rules • Louisiana Illuminator

The Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act calls for all social media sites with more than 5 million users to make “reasonable efforts” to obtain proof of age to establish an account.

lailluminator.com

My state has passed numerous crazy laws that were later ruled unconstitutional. I love my state and it's history and culture, but our ******* gov't is totally ******* whack. We have Jeff Landry who has a cajun accent like people think everyone in LA has, but he's not great at his job. Gargamel did less damage.

I'm a hard-right conservative libertarian BUT with an asterisk. One of those main ones is I do NOT support the death penalty IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Our judicial system is not that perfect to support such a final and absolute sentence. I also think people should be free to smoke anything or do any drugs they want in the comfort and safety of their own home. Just don't get into a car and drive.

 

[citygator]

Porn site age verification has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge because it violates privacy laws. LA had a law where no porn sites worked unless you verified your age which meant inputting your personal data. I knew that was illegal and I was right. It could easily be bypassed by simply using a VPN.

Louisiana’s age-check law for social media is unconstitutional, federal judge rules • Louisiana Illuminator

The Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act calls for all social media sites with more than 5 million users to make “reasonable efforts” to obtain proof of age to establish an account.

lailluminator.com

My state has passed numerous crazy laws that were later ruled unconstitutional. I love my state and it's history and culture, but our ******* gov't is totally ******* whack. We have Jeff Landry who has a cajun accent like people think everyone in LA has, but he's not great at his job. Gargamel did less damage.

I am all for free speech but you wouldnt stand for porn broadcast to TVs or no age restrictions to go into the movies to watch porn. I get the free speech angle but as a parent I am for age verification. I am not an expert on the details though, admittedly.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I am all for free speech but you wouldnt stand for porn broadcast to TVs or no age restrictions to go into the movies to watch porn. I get the free speech angle but as a parent I am for age verification. I am not an expert on the details though, admittedly.

A family can have porn channels on their DirecTV subscription and a child can walk in and turn the TV on and put it on porn when the parents are sleeping or at work or out of the house.

It's not up to the gov't to restrict children from viewing porn it's up to the parents.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Everyone should be very clear on exactly what this means. Everyone here will be doxxed in a government database linked to every comment or post you ever made. You will no longer ever really be anonymous. If you ever said anything critical of Israel, Trump, the DNC, anything, a quick AI search will come up with everything you ever said. I'm guessing forums like this will die because most people don't want to share their opinions that much. The no holds barred exercise in free speech and debate was fun while it lasted.

Utah’s New Law Targeting VPNs Goes Into Effect May 6th

Update, May 11, 2026: Utah has agreed to not enforce the VPN law until Sept. 3, 2026 after Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub.com, challenged the law in court.For the last couple of years, we’ve watched the same predictable cycle play out across the globe: a state (or country) passes a clunky...

www.eff.org

"For the last couple of years, we’ve watched the same predictable cycle play out across the globe: a state (or country) passes a clunky age-verification mandate, and, without fail, Virtual Private Network (VPN) usage surges as residents scramble to maintain their privacy and anonymity. We've seen this everywhere—from states like Florida, Missouri, Texas, and Utah, to countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and Indonesia.

Instead of realizing that mass surveillance and age gates aren't exactly crowd favorites, Utah lawmakers have decided that VPNs themselves are the real issue.

Next week, on May 6, 2026, Utah will become, to EFF’s knowledge, the first state in the nation to target the use of VPNs to avoid legally mandated age-verification gates. While advocates in states like Wisconsin successfully forced the removal of similar provisions due to constitutional and technical concerns, Utah is proceeding with a mandate that threatens to significantly undermine digital privacy rights. "

-------

Bill Gates' Push for New “Child Safety,” Age-Verification Laws for Internet Has Nothing to do With Child Safety. It is Surveillance and Control.

The first step to understanding the sudden rush toward Internet “age verification” is to discard the notion that it has anything to do with child safety.

publius297744.substack.com

Flash: The Sudden Push for New “Child Safety,” Age-Verification Laws for Internet Has Nothing to do With Child Safety. It is Surveillance and Control.​

The first step to understanding the sudden rush toward Internet “age verification” is to discard the notion that it has anything to do with child safety. The politicians pushing it are the same ones remaining silent on the lack of prosecutions after release of the Epstein files.



A moment’s thought would tell us that there is nothing these laws would do to “protect children” that the use of “parental control” settings on devices would not.

A simpler solution is to take away smartphones from young children altogether, and to block social media and harmful sites from devices, using the broad array of effective tools made for this purpose.

Some call it good parenting. There is no way to remove 100% of the risk of childhood. When you give your teenager the car keys for the first time, a part of you is terrified. But that is part of life.



But instead of recommending common sense measures, Big Tech is determined to create a problem by pushing smartphones and computers into the hands of children of all ages, i.e., a “car,” with the solution being to demand that anyone who turns the key has what in essence is a digital ID, linked to a high-resolution facial scan, to prove you are “old enough.” “Old enough” are the words of Bill Gates, a leading proponent of “age verification.”

Such a clever ruse betrays how much elites think about this, and how much they want it. Why?



“Age verification,” “child safety” laws are nothing more than the government’s latest attempt to build out an all-encompassing, total surveillance and social control system of the kind now being perfected in China.



The familiar “Are you a robot?” spot-checks used by many websites, which consist of checking a box to confirm “no I am not a robot,” will turn into spot facial scans, and presenting your digital ID QR code, so that all comments you make or actions you perform on the Internet, even searches, are now part of your permanent record.

Perhaps to be analyzed by AI or law enforcement at some point in the future, in the pursuit of “thought-crimes” like ”spreading misinformation,” as defined by the government of course.



The US government has shown that it has no qualms about abusing any power to collect US citizens’ personal communications. Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed that the NSA, after enactment of the Patriot Act, had been sweeping up the communications of millions of Americans, with no probable cause or warrants.

The Jacobin said of the episode in 2023 that the NSA:

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Subscribed

The Jacobin reported that the FBI had used the NSA database to look for information on Black Lives Matter protesters. According to the Times of Israel, Snowden also revealed that the NSA had shared millions of raw data files on Americans with Mossad, the Israeli secret service.



Using such a system, expanded to every corner of society, the Chinese Communist Party has eliminated all dissent and serious criticism of the government and its policies.



All ordinary Chinese are assigned a unique digital identity number at age 16, which is linked to a facial recognition scan, and all financial, medical, and other personal information.

CNET wrote in 2020:




In the name of “protecting the children,” politicians say it is now necessary to verify age. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that in order to verify age, they must know exactly who you are, through the upload of official ID documents, linked to a biometric facial scan, which puts you into a system which, coincidentally, can follow you around, know who you are seeing, what you are saying on the Internet, whether you have taken the latest injections touted as “vaccinations,” whether you own a firearm, and for “other purposes.”

The breathtakingly vague language “for other purposes” is the precise language used in the most recent federal “age verification” bill, the outlandishly named Parents Decide Act H.R. 8250, sponsored by Rep. Josh Gottheimer [D-NJ-5], Rep. Elise Stefanik [R-NY-21], and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick [R-PA-1.]



Most importantly, the facial scan, digital ID system presumably for the “protection of children” will have teeth. The political and banking elites make no secret of their desire for a purely digital currency financial system, devoid of cash, which could allow or disallow purchases in real-time.

Larry Fink, CEO of Blackrock, the world’s largest and most powerful investment company, and now also the president of the World Economic Forum, has described, in glowing terms, the coming “tokenizaton” of all assets from houses to currency, into one global ledger, linked to all individuals by a digital ID.

Former Bush Sr. administration official Catherine Austin Fitts says the system will be like “the company store,” where there is only one place to spend the money that you earn and all transactions are on the store’s terms.


Anyone “spreading misinformation,” as determined by the government, could be punished by shutting off their ability to buy or sell. Age verification will require the creation of a de facto digital ID, which would eventually link to all bank accounts and determine the ability to access them. Cash would be non-existent.

The eagerness of governments to weaponize the financial system as a tool to force compliance with arbitrary, executive branch mandates and rules has been clearly shown. During the Canadian trucker’s protest against COVID vaccine mandates, which millions of pages of newly released documents indicate were far more harmful than health agencies were telling the public, truckers and their supporters were having their bank accounts and credit cards frozen by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in retaliation for opposing the mandate.

In January, 2026, outspoken UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter revealed on Judge Napolitano’s show that he had been “de-banked,” and had his primary 26 year bank account with Citizens Bank suddenly terminated without explanation. Ritter is a harsh critic of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, and regularly accuses these governments of war crimes. Ritter says he believes pressure from the federal government played a role.

December 13, 2025, mass protests in UK against China-style digital ID.


Former Fox News reporter Clayton Morris on “age verification” Trojan horse




China is the Model

The model for handling citizens which Western elites make no secret of wanting to emulate is China, where one’s digital account can be debited, with no due process, for any infraction specified by the government, or suspended completely. In 2023 Bill Gates praised China’s admittedly “authoritarian” COVID response. Klaus Schwab, founder of the powerful World Economic Forum, praised China for imposing harsh “COVID control measures” on citizens.

This is why governments and bankers have been pushing for what is called “central bank digital currency (CBDC,)” a scheme in which all cash is abolished, and the government determines who can spend how much money, on what, and when. If it is determined that your greenhouse gas “carbon footprint” is excessively high, for example, your gas purchases can be instantly rolled back. Likewise, if your facial scan profile has been spotted at a protest, whether a J6 or “No Kings,” expect a knock on your door within hours.

If a journalist, or anyone, has spoken out against government corruption, he suddenly might not be able to shop for food, if the accusations have been deemed “misinformation.”

Even some central bankers who are more concerned with the future of their country than their own power, such as Neel Kashkari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, have warned that a CBDC would allow the federal government to:

“monitor every one of your transactions. I get why China would be interested. Why would the American people be for that?”



The Chinese System Works



Investment Watchblog reports in May 2023:


According to China Undercover, in China new legions of homeless are being created of people who did not toe the government line, and have had their ability to rent,buy or sell shut off.

Banned, Broke, and Homeless: The Human Cost of China’s Social Credit System




The Chinese system works, and Chinese politicians and government officials face very little criticism of themselves or their policies.

Even in the middle of massive corruption, in which massive numbers of people are barely subsisting or starving, there are no protests or social unrest.

CNET describes how all speech in China, literally what you can say and not say, is ruthlessly controlled.



CNET writes:


“No allowed space” to say bad or mean things about me, behind my back and in private, even if they are true. What else could be a politician’s most dearly held dream since time immemorial?

“Any package, pallet or container can now be equipped with a sensor, transmitter or radio frequency identification (RFID) tag that allows a company to track where it is as it moves through the supply chain—how it is performing, how it is being used, and so on….In the near future, similar monitoring systems will also be applied to the movement and tracking of people.” - Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, in his book The Fourth Industrial Revolution



Below: BBC reporter tests China surveillance system

---

104 Replies · 1.43K Reposts · 2.35K Likes

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!VrDS!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/e6496d95-3000-4d8c-a455-ae2db74e88fc_1023x567.png

If you ever read my post you will know that I have been warning Americans about this for years now.

When the democrats WEF masters deem their shillbots and NPCs ineffective, they will move to remove Americans access to sites like this. They will call it a cyber pandemic.

Be ready

Democrats = traitors

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes



If it’s not illegal, no, that’s freedom of speech.
If what I say isn’t hurting anyone, then no, it is protected speech.



Yes, if you break the law.

Why? You're not anonymous when you talk in real life.

No, we shouldn't be responsible for what we say. Wow.

Ah, now you're saying "if it doesn't hurt anyone." Well, should you be responsible for speech that HURTS PEOPLE?

So, your post is a massive contradiction. Yes, you should be subject to consequences of breaking the law, but not, you should not be subject to consequences if you break the law on the internet. Huh?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So responsible speech changes depending on who is in office?

What?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I am all for free speech but you wouldnt stand for porn broadcast to TVs or no age restrictions to go into the movies to watch porn. I get the free speech angle but as a parent I am for age verification. I am not an expert on the details though, admittedly.

As a parent, there are plenty of things that are a concern on the internet.

Bullying, for example.

 

[citygator]

As a parent, there are plenty of things that are a concern on the internet.

Bullying, for example.

Good one too.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why? You're not anonymous when you talk in real life.

Sure I am, if I’m talking in public, nobody standing near me knows who I am. We should be anonymous online, which is why we use personas and nick names. There are too many people who would get upset and try to dox you or track you down for being online to not be anonymous.

No, we shouldn't be responsible for what we say. Wow.

Unless it actually hurts someone, no. I do not believe speech should have consequences, unless you say something that really hurts someone. Free speech means people should be able to say the most vile and horrible things, and be able to walk away unscathed. If you start policing SOME speech, then you eventually will have no free speech..barring things that actually cause harm, such as defamation etc.

Ah, now you're saying "if it doesn't hurt anyone." Well, should you be responsible for speech that HURTS PEOPLE?

If I call you a doody poo poo head, you should have thick enough skin to deal with it, but if I say “I saw you rob a store” then I should be held responsible for defamation.

So, your post is a massive contradiction. Yes, you should be subject to consequences of breaking the law, but not, you should not be subject to consequences if you break the law on the internet. Huh?

I don’t understand, what do you mean? If you break the law, you should be held responsible, I’ve no issue wit that

 

[ThisIsMe]

What?

Post 11 asked “who decides what responsible speech is, the government?”

To which you responded “yes, that is what happens in real life”

So my question is, if government decides what responsible speech is, does that mean the definition changes depending on who is in office?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure I am, if I’m talking in public, nobody standing near me knows who I am. We should be anonymous online, which is why we use personas and nick names. There are too many people who would get upset and try to dox you or track you down for being online to not be anonymous.



Unless it actually hurts someone, no. I do not believe speech should have consequences, unless you say something that really hurts someone. Free speech means people should be able to say the most vile and horrible things, and be able to walk away unscathed. If you start policing SOME speech, then you eventually will have no free speech..barring things that actually cause harm, such as defamation etc.



If I call you a doody poo poo head, you should have thick enough skin to deal with it, but if I say “I saw you rob a store” then I should be held responsible for defamation.



I don’t understand, what do you mean? If you break the law, you should be held responsible, I’ve no issue wit that

You're not anonymous. Even if people don't know who you are.

People see you, remember you and sometimes they end up in court giving evidence against you.

Well, I think anonymity online is causing quite a lot of problems that countries like Russia and China are using to sow hatred and division within the country, and the whole of the West.

People like Trump come along and also do the same thing. It's unsustainable.

Define "hurt".

If there's bullying of school kids by school kids online, and a kid kills themselves, is that "harm"? At what point did it become "harm"? Only when that kid killed themselves or when that bullying started to impact that kid?

We shouldn't allow bullying, we should be teaching kids to respect each other. But the right wing way is the opposite. And then they go to church on a Sunday where they're told to treat everyone properly. And then they leave and believe in Darwin.

Speech is already policed. You have libel laws, you have treason laws.

So, you call me a name. Whatever.
You call me a name, and then another, and then you get others to call me names and soon I'm thinking of suicide because it's ruining my life.

There's a difference.

And what about if I go online and say "hey, Gary at number 6 is a pedophile, let's go burn down his house"....

Yeah, consequences. Oh, but I'm anonymous, nobody can trace this. Then someone burns Gary's house down. He's not a pedophile, I made that up, and now he's dead. But I'm free because it's all anonymous.

You say if I break the law I should be held accountable. And then you say that I should be anonymous on the internet so I am free to break the law.

You don't see the contradiction there?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Post 11 asked “who decides what responsible speech is, the government?”

To which you responded “yes, that is what happens in real life”

So my question is, if government decides what responsible speech is, does that mean the definition changes depending on who is in office?

Maybe. How many laws in the US depend on the circumstances?

Again. If you call me a shitheadfucker once, that's different than if you get loads of people to do it on a daily basis.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You're not anonymous. Even if people don't know who you are.

People see you, remember you and sometimes they end up in court giving evidence against you.

Sure, but I’m not committing crimes so people have no reason to pay attention to me, which is fine with me.

Well, I think anonymity online is causing quite a lot of problems that countries like Russia and China are using to sow hatred and division within the country, and the whole of the West.

Discourse like this couldn’t happen without anonymity. Too many crazies.

People like Trump come along and also do the same thing. It's unsustainable.

Define "hurt".

Hurt is if I say something that has a material negative effect on you, like defamation, or if I tell someone you did something and they attack you for it.

If there's bullying of school kids by school kids online, and a kid kills themselves, is that "harm"? At what point did it become "harm"? Only when that kid killed themselves or when that bullying started to impact that kid?

Do you think bullying should be a criminal offense?

We shouldn't allow bullying, we should be teaching kids to respect each other

I agree

. But the right wing way is the opposite. And then they go to church on a Sunday where they're told to treat everyone properly. And then they leave and believe in Darwin.

I think we should treat each other kindly and with respect. But I also think you draw a fine line when you want to start policing speech.

Speech is already policed. You have libel laws, you have treason laws.

Yes, there are legal ramifications to some speech, I’m talking about general speech.

So, you call me a name. Whatever.
You call me a name, and then another, and then you get others to call me names and soon I'm thinking of suicide because it's ruining my life.

There's a difference.

If that is done and it’s with intent, I might agree, beyond that, do you think we should put bully’s in jail?

And what about if I go online and say "hey, Gary at number 6 is a pedophile, let's go burn down his house"....

That’s defamation

Yeah, consequences. Oh, but I'm anonymous, nobody can trace this. Then someone burns Gary's house down. He's not a pedophile, I made that up, and now he's dead. But I'm free because it's all anonymous.

If you commit the crime of defamation, the police can subpoena the data from this site to find you.

You say if I break the law I should be held accountable. And then you say that I should be anonymous on the internet so I am free to break the law.

You don't see the contradiction there?

There is no contradiction. Being anonymous to other posters here doesn’t protect you from the law. If you commit a crime online, the authorities will find you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure, but I’m not committing crimes so people have no reason to pay attention to me, which is fine with me.




Discourse like this couldn’t happen without anonymity. Too many crazies.



Hurt is if I say something that has a material negative effect on you, like defamation, or if I tell someone you did something and they attack you for it.



Do you think bullying should be a criminal offense?




I agree




I think we should treat each other kindly and with respect. But I also think you draw a fine line when you want to start policing speech.



Yes, there are legal ramifications to some speech, I’m talking about general speech.



If that is done and it’s with intent, I might agree, beyond that, do you think we should put bully’s in jail?


That’s defamation




If you commit the crime of defamation, the police can subpoena the data from this site to find you.




There is no contradiction. Being anonymous to other posters here doesn’t protect you from the law. If you commit a crime online, the authorities will find you.

Maybe not.

If you're not committing crimes, does it matter whether you're anonymous or not?

That's not me saying that you need to know who I am. I don't tell people who I am, where I'm from, my gender, race or anything I don't want them to know.

However having a system whereby if I say something that really is against the law, the relevant people can find me.


Discourse like this barely happens on here anyway. There are crazies.

The problem is that Trump is one of the crazies and he's attacking free speech. Which is why the US needs better government, a better electoral system.

But here's the biggest problem. If Trump can be a president now, then other crazies will be presidents in the future, and then what? The US will die because of this, its freedom of speech will die with it.

To PROTECT freedom of speech you need to have sanity in politics, you need to prevent those people or countries like Trump, China, Russa etc from attacking it all.

You're telling me that "hurt" is a "material effect", so **** all the mental problems people are giving, because.... why?

Why is it that if I say something and Trump says "you lost me $1 million" that's "harm" and if he says something that makes me want to kill myself, that's FINE???

Makes no sense and is not very healthy for society.

Should bullying be a criminal offense?

Well, I think actions should have consequences. I think bullying should be stopped. You don't need to make it criminal, you can just ban people for a time. Let them know their actions are wrong, then allow them back. If they do it again, ban them again. There are better ways that making it all criminal.

Yes, policing free speech is a difficult line to take. But I think in the social media age we don't have a choice. Because the other choice is a destruction of the freedoms we have.

If I tell people to burn someone's house down, is that "defamation"?

So, the police can get the data from this website. I know for 100% certainty that the police would not find me if I wrote something like that. So....

You're changing your tone. Should we be anonymous? Again. We can be anonymous from the people here, but not be anonymous from the law. You're suggesting now that we should NOT be anonymous from the law on the internet. Which is what is being talked about here.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Maybe not.

If you're not committing crimes, does it matter whether you're anonymous or not?

Yes, it does, because anonymity is often needed to protect people from other people. It’s why ice agents wear masks. If it weren’t for that, you’d have liberals doxxing them and their families and terrorizing them.
Same with anonymity on the internet.

That's not me saying that you need to know who I am. I don't tell people who I am, where I'm from, my gender, race or anything I don't want them to know.

However having a system whereby if I say something that really is against the law, the relevant people can find me.

If you break a law, even on the internet, the authorities can find you.

Discourse like this barely happens on here anyway. There are crazies.

The problem is that Trump is one of the crazies and he's attacking free speech. Which is why the US needs better government, a better electoral system.

I’ll agree, we need better government, all around.

To PROTECT freedom of speech you need to have sanity in politics, you need to prevent those people or countries like Trump, China, Russa etc from attacking it all.

Trump isn’t attacking free speech, he’s just a big baby with thin skin and can’t take criticism. As far as Kimmel goes, I don’t think he should be taken off the air, but the democrats created a machine, and now Kimmel is going through it.

You're telling me that "hurt" is a "material effect", so **** all the mental problems people are giving, because.... why?

I disagree with bullying, and I think it should be discouraged, but are we really going to silence anyone who calls someone else a bad name? Or silence content that one finds offensive?

Why is it that if I say something and Trump says "you lost me $1 million" that's "harm" and if he says something that makes me want to kill myself, that's FINE???

If you say something that loses him 1 million, you probably said something you knew would be damaging to his business or in some way wound cause harm, but if trump calls you a name that makes you want to harm yourself, how would he know it would have that effect?

Makes no sense and is not very healthy for society.

Should bullying be a criminal offense?

Well, I think actions should have consequences. I think bullying should be stopped. You don't need to make it criminal, you can just ban people for a time.

Ok, but then you run into the problem of, what one person finds offensive is very subjective. How would you ever police that?

Let them know their actions are wrong, then allow them back. If they do it again, ban them again. There are better ways that making it all criminal.

Are we talking specifically about Internet forums or society in general?

Yes, policing free speech is a difficult line to take. But I think in the social media age we don't have a choice. Because the other choice is a destruction of the freedoms we have.

If I tell people to burn someone's house down, is that "defamation"?

No, that’s incitement, and on that, it’s a fine line, because you are making a suggestion, and the other person has the agency to not act on your suggestion.

So, the police can get the data from this website. I know for 100% certainty that the police would not find me if I wrote something like that. So....

I think we have cyber crime divisions that could find you, or, maybe YOU have found a way to completely be off the grid, but most people haven’t.

You're changing your tone. Should we be anonymous? Again. We can be anonymous from the people here, but not be anonymous from the law. You're suggesting now that we should NOT be anonymous from the law on the internet. Which is what is being talked about here.

No, I’m talking about being anonymous in being able to speak freely without people trying to harm you. If you break laws, then the authorities can find you. That’s not being inconsistent.

As far as bullying, I understand that mental health is a problem, and some people really struggle, I know some people like that, but if you want to be really honest, most of the problem could be solved with better parenting. Have a dad in the household who will instill discipline into their kids, make them do chores, and they have to have them done Saturday morning before they can go play with their friends in the afternoon. If they misbehave, they get grounded and lose access to their phone, or the car, or their Xbox. We need parents that are actually willing to tell their kids “no” instead of giving them everything they want, and not caving in when they throw a fit because they don’t get what they want.

We need to stop coddling kids and sheltering them from the real world, we need to stop participation trophies, and teaching kids that “everyone is a winner” even when you lose, which teaches kids that they should be able to have everything they want just because they did something, then later in life they find out that that’s not how the real world works, and they don’t have the ability to deal with it.

Some of these mental health issues are likely taught over time because kids were never told no, they were never taught discipline, they were always taught that they should have the same things as the other kids.

Again, I’m NOT discounting real mental health issues, but a lot of the issues we’re seeing today are actually taught and reinforced over years of not having good strong parents in the house.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, it does, because anonymity is often needed to protect people from other people. It’s why ice agents wear masks. If it weren’t for that, you’d have liberals doxxing them and their families and terrorizing them.
Same with anonymity on the internet.





If you break a law, even on the internet, the authorities can find you.




I’ll agree, we need better government, all around.




Trump isn’t attacking free speech, he’s just a big baby with thin skin and can’t take criticism. As far as Kimmel goes, I don’t think he should be taken off the air, but the democrats created a machine, and now Kimmel is going through it.



I disagree with bullying, and I think it should be discouraged, but are we really going to silence anyone who calls someone else a bad name? Or silence content that one finds offensive?



If you say something that loses him 1 million, you probably said something you knew would be damaging to his business or in some way wound cause harm, but if trump calls you a name that makes you want to harm yourself, how would he know it would have that effect?



Ok, but then you run into the problem of, what one person finds offensive is very subjective. How would you ever police that?



Are we talking specifically about Internet forums or society in general?



No, that’s incitement, and on that, it’s a fine line, because you are making a suggestion, and the other person has the agency to not act on your suggestion.




I think we have cyber crime divisions that could find you, or, maybe YOU have found a way to completely be off the grid, but most people haven’t.




No, I’m talking about being anonymous in being able to speak freely without people trying to harm you. If you break laws, then the authorities can find you. That’s not being inconsistent.

As far as bullying, I understand that mental health is a problem, and some people really struggle, I know some people like that, but if you want to be really honest, most of the problem could be solved with better parenting. Have a dad in the household who will instill discipline into their kids, make them do chores, and they have to have them done Saturday morning before they can go play with their friends in the afternoon. If they misbehave, they get grounded and lose access to their phone, or the car, or their Xbox. We need parents that are actually willing to tell their kids “no” instead of giving them everything they want, and not caving in when they throw a fit because they don’t get what they want.

We need to stop coddling kids and sheltering them from the real world, we need to stop participation trophies, and teaching kids that “everyone is a winner” even when you lose, which teaches kids that they should be able to have everything they want just because they did something, then later in life they find out that that’s not how the real world works, and they don’t have the ability to deal with it.

Some of these mental health issues are likely taught over time because kids were never told no, they were never taught discipline, they were always taught that they should have the same things as the other kids.

Again, I’m NOT discounting real mental health issues, but a lot of the issues we’re seeing today are actually taught and reinforced over years of not having good strong parents in the house.

Again, your answers are contradictory.

Anonymity on the internet means you're hiding from the government.

Free speech is all about whether the government can stop you talking or not.

Trump is so trying to stop free speech. He's stopped reporters he doesn't like from the White House and the Pentagon. He's suing media outlets for saying things he doesn't like, then threatening them if they don't roll over in the court case.

With freedom of speech, as with all rights, there are limits. Calling someone a name isn't bullying. Repeated harassment is.

How do you police free speech? Firstly by having a very clear framework as to what is acceptable and what isn't.

Yes, telling someone to burn down a house is incitement. HOWEVER you have a lot of Americans attacking the UK for "free speech" because the UK is locking people up for inciting violence.

But how do you police that? Well, you make laws and then you take people to court.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again, your answers are contradictory.

Anonymity on the internet means you're hiding from the government.

You think the government can’t find out who people are on message boards?

Free speech is all about whether the government can stop you talking or not.

Trump is so trying to stop free speech. He's stopped reporters he doesn't like from the White House and the Pentagon. He's suing media outlets for saying things he doesn't like, then threatening them if they don't roll over in the court case.

He’s not silencing them. They are free to report anything they want. There is no right to be in the White House press room and if he thinks news agencies are going to report him inaccurately, or unfairly, he can prevent them from being there.

if Fox or a right wing news agency didn’t same thing to a democrat president and he removed them, I’d say the same thing.

With freedom of speech, as with all rights, there are limits. Calling someone a name isn't bullying. Repeated harassment is.

Agreed, and if they harass someone, then that can be dealt with as it is intentional and malicious.

That would have a negative impact on someone.

Harassment is against the law.

How do you police free speech? Firstly by having a very clear framework as to what is acceptable and what isn't.

Who decides this? Republicans? Democrats?

Yes, telling someone to burn down a house is incitement. HOWEVER you have a lot of Americans attacking the UK for "free speech" because the UK is locking people up for inciting violence.

Well, I don’t control what other people do. As I said, incitement is a slippery slope slope with me because at the end of the day, it’s just a suggestion, the person hearing it has full capacity to not listen to them, but I get in the heat of the moment it can cause an emotional response so, who knows.

So I could see incitement as being something they couldn’t charge people over.

But how do you police that? Well, you make laws and then you take people to court.

And opening that can of worms will lead to those things being encroached upon more and more as time goes on.

what one finds to be “harassing” today might be different than what someone finds harassing 10 years from now