http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A1500/1327_I1.HTM

There goes, another right.

But it's FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!
John

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is quite common already. Most BBS's require a real name and valid email address before allowing a new member to post.

My ISP certainly required a valid name and address before turning on my account.

From what Paul posted in the staff forum at CCSP, it also means that any forum owner would have to have the legal right to member information such as social security to ensure members are who they say they are.

Social Security #? Don't like the sound of that, at all.

I used to really love NJ. Now it's just becoming too liberal. It's beginning to look a lot like it's time for a tea party.

I don't see the problem. No one is forcing them to post the opinion. No one is forcing them to use these forums. What it appears to be happening is an attempt to hold the author accountable for what they post.
I do believe this is a vane effort. It takes no effort to submit false information and circumvent requirements, in the purposed law.
If you are not willing to identify yourself and allow the subject of you opinion to respond directly to you, may be you should keep your opinion to your self.
It is far to easy to slander or defame with no way to challenge such media.
I could post to a site causing problems and am never qualify my statement. Rumor are as damaging as fact is most cases, and should be challenged. The only way to challenge the truthfulness of a statement is to know who the accuser is. I have posted my opinion dozens of time in my local news paper, and everytime I was required to also publish my address. Now I had a choice to not provide my address and they had a choice not to publish my opinion. I just do not see the problem with it being a law. Especially since most see the internet as untouchable.
Thos eof you who do not think this is a problem, I have a challenge. POST the YOU are a sex offender on a local website. Wait a couple of months and come out and say it was a joke. Your reputation will be damaged beyond repair. It will not matter that you can prove you are not. You will be on lists all over the internet, and as of now have no recourse.
When you sit on the side lines or play by the rules it does not to affect you. But if you are the person harmed you will have wished there were some rule to protect you from such attacks.

IMHO

The inside political scope I heard is that the author of this bill was smeared by an anonymous poster on some website. Probably a political opponent and his bill appears to be a retaliatory response.

Would it be a " retaliatory response", or just an effort by a law maker to prempt future attacks? He happens to be a victim. Why should a coward be able to hide behind the vale of the internet? If it is so important you indentity be consealed keep your mouth, and computer connection closed.
quiteman7 help me out here. Quote exactly what rights the accused have to comfront the accuser. It's not a legal proceeding, but if it were to go to court how would the injuried confront the offending party?

Not knowing anything about this particular politician its hard to say one way or the other. His action could even be a combination of both retaliation and premption.

That's part of the problem. The victim could not seek damages for libel without naming an offender that would be subject to prosecution. To complicate the case further would be the matter of establishing jurisdiction since the alleged offense is talking place on a web site.

Further, the courts have ruled that there is a much higher standard for public figures seeking redress of grievances through litigation since negative statements about them are generally protected by the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause. That's why political activists and campaigns can engage in smear tactics and misinformation against an opponent. The courts consider all this as political discourse.

Lets ratchet it back abit. What about the common person who has no political exposer. A child logs in and accuses a teacher of molesting her. Once a teacher is accused that person could have a career destroyed, even if you could proved he never commited the act. That was an example. Fill in the blanks with accused and accuser.
"The courts consider all this as political discourse". Discourse or not a lie is a lie. No one should be allowed to tell untruthful information about anyone.

I agree! From the NJ.com board: and other more colorful comments that aren't fit for a family site, can't be allowed! Just because the guy stole $5000 of public money to pay for his dry cleaning shouldn't stop him from suing for punitive damages and attorney's fees when somebody starts to publicly speculate as to his personal habits and possible ancestry.

Or that the chief of police spends two hours of his on duty time in the department gym isn't a topic fit for public discussion either.

That's a different scenario altogether since it does not involve political discourse and there is recourse for litigation if the offending party can be identified. The bill would seem to make that identification possible. However, the matter of jurisdiction would still need to be established before proceeding with prosecution.

The jurisdiction issue has been worked out by every state. There is not a state that has not successfully prosecuted persons for crimes against juveniles on the internet. That may have been an issue several years back but I do not see the problem today. If it was a problem that should not stop law enforcement from attempting to establish a proceedure to stop the offenders.
Why should the internet be left untouchable where in other part of our life it would not be tolorated.

Unfortunately not all law enforcement agencies and prosecutors are up to speed on Internet jurisdictional matters {even today} especially in small towns and rural areas across the country. Many are still playing catchup on issues such as this while others are just lazy. Of course they could always get help/advice from the feds if they would make the effort to ask.