3 ms·
Why the heck would the government compel people to formally identify themselves to read or comment on a newspaper or a blog? That's absurd and unconstitutional
by crazygringo 6mo ago
Why the heck would the government compel people to formally identify themselves to read or comment on a newspaper or a blog? That's absurd and unconstitutional in the US.
You're starting from an assumption that is invalid to begin with.
- ibejoeb 6mo agoI don't know. Why would the government compel someone to formally identify himself to put cash in a box at the bank? Why would the government compel people to take off their shoes to get on a plane? Or submit biometric data drive a car? KYC for a phone line... It's not invalid. I have no reason to believe that this isn't going to creep.
- crazygringo 6mo agoWe have extremely strong first amendment protections that form part of our constitution. That's why it's not going to creep. It would be a blatant violation of the first amendment.
- ibejoeb 6mo agoI think your interpretation, even if correct, is not the current position of the legislature. This post and the thread attached to it is about how it's currently happening. Personally, I don't see a future where you don't have a digital ID. If the government can compel you to provide an ID to, say, travel or operate a vehicle in public, I don't see a compelling 1A argument that it can't do the same to operate computing device on the public internet.
- crazygringo 6mo agoWhile I don't agree on your characterization of the legislature, it doesn't even matter. That's the whole purpose of having checks and balances, and a Supreme Court that can strike down unconstitutional legislation. And your analogy between driving a vehicle and posting on a website doesn't work because there is no constitutional protection for driving vehicles or taking commercial air flights. However there is a constitutional protection for speech, above all political speech. That's the difference.