NY's potential contribution to the perfection of the internet

On the Media, a great public radio show from New York, just brought to my attention a bill from New York that is aimed at the elimination of anonymous commenting on internet sites (I can't tell if their goal is to reform the entire internet, or just the part of the internet that resides in New York state - in either case the whole thing seems a little futile).

Given that the bill is less than a page long (and is really just an amendment to the civil rights law) I was able to breeze through it in just a few minutes.

The first aspect of the bill that caught my attention was the definition of the term 'anonymous poster.'  In the bill an

ANONYMOUS POSTER IS ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO POSTS A MESSAGE ON A WEB SITE INCLUDING SOCIAL NETWORKS, BLOGS FORUMS, MESSAGE BOARDS ORANY OTHER DISCUSSION SITE WHERE PEOPLE CAN HOLD CONVERSATIONS IN THE FORM OF POSTED MESSAGES.

According to my reading of this definition the 'anonymous' descriptor is really superfluous as they seem to be referring to any and all who post messages on websites.  Why not use this basic definition of a 'poster' and then suggest that anyone who engages in such actions without providing their legal name and contact information is an 'anonymous poster'?  Or is that too obvious a solution?

Another definitional matter that is worth thinking about is that they haven't defined what constitutes a 'message.'  Might a 'thumbs up' or a 'like' be a 'message'?  In some ways, these non-verbal interactions with web-based content may be just as important or meaningful as various forms of written contributions.  And what about videos or audio content, are these things 'messages'?

Aside from obvious jurisdictional, technological, and enforcement issues, I was also struck by the bill's brief business end.  If passed the bill will require

A WEB SITE ADMINISTRATOR UPON REQUEST SHALL REMOVE ANY COMMENTS POSTED ON HIS OR HER WEB SITE BY AN ANONYMOUS POSTER UNLESS SUCH ANONYMOUS POSTER AGREES TO ATTACH HIS OR HER NAME TO THE POST AND CONFIRMS THAT HIS OR HER IP ADDRESS, LEGAL NAME, AND HOME ADDRESS ARE ACCURATE. ALL WEB SITE ADMINISTRATORS SHALL HAVE A CONTACT NUMBER OR E-MAIL ADDRESS POSTED FOR SUCH REMOVAL REQUESTS, CLEARLY VISIBLE IN ANY SECTIONS WHERE COMMENTS ARE POSTED.

First of all, who can lodge such a request?  Is this opportunity open to anyone, and if so how are they expected to go about doing this?  Can I use New York and its courts to unmask trolls even if I nor the trolls are in New York?

Secondly, and this is maybe the most striking feature of this bill, the suggestion that one can engage in anonymous posting as long as 'anonymous posters' provide their name, address, and contact information seems to be something of an oxymoron to me.  It would seem to me that if an 'anonymous poster' is providing all of this information that they are no longer anonymous - but that's just my non-legal reading of this text (and if you recall the earlier definition 'anonymous poster' meant basically anyone posting anything on the web so maybe this isn't as crazy as it seems).

Of course, the substantive issue that this bill seems to be addressing is the legitimacy of anonymous communication.  It would seem that those in support of this bill don't think that residents of New York/users of the internet should be able to engage in anonymous communication despite the fact that anonymous communication has a long and storied history in the United States, The Federalist Papers being a particularly prominent example of an important anonymous publication in the US.  Given first amendment protections of free speech in the US this position seems strange, and, based on a quick internet search, not only that is likely to fare well under the harsh light of judicial review.

Anyway, I guess we'll see if this makes it anywhere (and as nothing has happened since the bill's introduction on March 21 my fears may be for naught).