Should this feature be taken out?

Discussion of general topics related to the new version and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
Forum rules
Discussion of general topics related to the new release and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
custmguru
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:02 pm
Location: NW USA
Contact:

Re: Should this feature be taken out?

Post by custmguru »

Holy cow. that was a little excessive? One state is trying to pass a law (the valididty of which has already been discussed as being unconstitutional) and one person thinks it would affect phpBB and now the U.S. is trying to exert it's laws on the whole world?

Calm down, sparky. It's allright, I promise. No one is taking your guest privies away. Phew, glad thats over.
rivaldo
Registered User
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:05 am
Contact:

Re: Should this feature be taken out?

Post by rivaldo »

Yoda_IRC wrote: Yet another fine example of... <snip> </snip>
Sorry, I couldn't make it all the way through your rant. Dude, this nutty piece of legislation isn't going anywhere. I'm guessing that not even in China do they have a law like this. How ridiculous...
Martin Blank
Registered User
Posts: 687
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 11:17 am

Re: Should this feature be taken out?

Post by Martin Blank »

Yoda_IRC wrote: Yet another fine example of the U.S.A trying to wrongfully assert its laws on the rest of the world!!!
You're spouting off on something about which you obviously know absolutely nothing at all.

In the United States, laws can be made at the federal or the state level. State laws may affect only activities that happen within the state. California cannot pass a law regulating activities in Nevada. This is expressly forbidden in the Constitution. Federal laws deal (mostly) with interactions that cross state boundaries or national borders. If someone is kidnapped in California but never leaves the state, then California's kidnapping laws are used. If a state border is crossed, then it becomes a federal jurisdiction.

These proposed laws would affect only those boards physically located within the state of New Jersey. A server located one foot (or meter, if you want) outside of New Jersey is not affected by the laws of New Jersey.

phpBB has no reason to remove guest posting, not least of which because they're not in New Jersey, and because this would never survive a court challenge.

If you're going to spout off on US law, then learn something about it first.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
nachtelb
Registered User
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:55 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Should this feature be taken out?

Post by nachtelb »

cooleo100d wrote: Maybe when a forum is created, the default permissions should be to not allow guests to post? Is that already set up? I can't really remember.
I think this has been changed 2 weeks ago.
User avatar
smithy_dll
Registered User
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Should this feature be taken out?

Post by smithy_dll »

Default for new forums in Olympus is no permissions, or seemed to be when I last looked.

Simply possesing something that has the potential to break the law it not unlawful, only once it is used to break the law does the specific unlawful action become unlawful, cite: ripping music CDs to digital music is illegal, unless of course you are the artist or they let you rip the CD.

Even if phpBB was created in new jersey, I don't see why it would be illegal to supply it with guest posting permissions possible (Unless of course another law was proposed for that, which it sounds like this bill is not).

In all, it's not phpBBs responsibility to keep up with these kinds of laws, it's the responsibility of the person using phpBB in the region affected.
Image
phpBB, its open source, become involved, write a modification!
Modifications Database | MOD Development Forum Rules | MOD Studio
bpat1434
Registered User
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: Should this feature be taken out?

Post by bpat1434 »

Not to spark more debate . . .

IF this bill passes into law in Jersey (which it might or might not do, depends on the politics at the time) then 2 things will happen:
1.) Someone will HAVE to be caught in Jersey (using IP logging or other software).
2.) The person will have to be charged (indicted) and then taken to court. In which the defendant has to claim the law as being unfair or unconstitional.

Once that happens, it will go under review where precedence should rule and the law will be declared unconstitutional.
A1327 wrote: register a legal name and address with the operator or provider prior to posting messages on a public forum website.
Ain't gonna happen. Would totally destroy the forums in that state.
makes any operator or Internet service provider liable for compensatory and punitive damages as well as costs of a law suit filed by a person damaged by the posting of such messages if the operator or Internet service provider fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy
Ain't gonna happen. We've got COPPA for underage users. Fine. But seriously. There are disclaimers for reasons people.

Webmasters can't be held accountable for all content because they don't read every post. If the movies can say "this was fictional and any likeness to real events is purely coincidental", why can't we say "any views expressed on this board are that of the poster, and not of the site, agency or operator of said website". Seems logical to me....
If a senator can get away with sexual harassment IN SESSION (happened in Maryland a few weeks ago), we should be allowed to get away with a small disclaimer to remove ourselves from being targeted...
Martin Blank
Registered User
Posts: 687
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 11:17 am

Re: Should this feature be taken out?

Post by Martin Blank »

Such a law can (and has been) challenged on the basis of vagueness prior to it even going into force. Various attempts to keep pr0n away from children, for example, have been challenged basically as soon as they were signed into law, and stays on enforcement immediately put into place which then remained through the duration of the trials, which have often seen the laws overturned.

Will it get through the legislative process? Unlikely. But if it did, there's a very good chance that it would be handled as I just stated above.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
User avatar
EXreaction
Registered User
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 am

Re: Should this feature be taken out?

Post by EXreaction »

I am not saying this would pass...because I know it won't...but if it was ever possible that it could pass, couldn't you just use a host in a different place that allows anon posting?
bpat1434
Registered User
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: Should this feature be taken out?

Post by bpat1434 »

Yeah, you could use a different host; however, if you perform the act (posting anonymously) within the borders of the state, you're still accountable. It's where you do the act, not where the server is located.

If where the server was located is what mattered, lots of the "piracy" that we see today would be challenged by saying "well, I downloaded off of a Russian server, so I can't be held responsible"... so it's where you commit the act, not where it's served from.
User avatar
NNO-Stephen
Registered User
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 12:47 am
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Contact:

Re: Should this feature be taken out?

Post by NNO-Stephen »

bpat1434 wrote: Yeah, you could use a different host; however, if you perform the act (posting anonymously) within the borders of the state, you're still accountable. It's where you do the act, not where the server is located.

If where the server was located is what mattered, lots of the "piracy" that we see today would be challenged by saying "well, I downloaded off of a Russian server, so I can't be held responsible"... so it's where you commit the act, not where it's served from.
again, this completely ignores that any such law would be unconstitutional and thrown out in an instant. not to mention that ever political activist group (like the EFF for instance) would scream bloody murder.

this idiotic law will never happen. ever.

unless Jeb Bush is elected in 08...
Image
Post Reply