Should we allow usernames that are misleading (as defined in this post)?

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

By no means am I concerned about that. Nor do I think we need to worry that the good Doctor Qadgop the Mercotan is gonna be thought of as the slimy space monster.:eek:

I only want well known political persons names blocked- I dont want to see Donald Trump, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. You can call yourself Ron Seavers or Edith Nesbit or even Leroy Jethro Gibbs as far as I am concerned.

Not to mention- it can be illegal-Penal Code 529 PC, California. Mind you, "makes it a crime to engage in false impersonation. This is defined as using another person’s name or identity to cause harm to that person or to gain an unjust advantage." so that is a issue- but how do we know WHY someone picked that name? Our president named poster certainly wasnt looking to bring glory onto that name, now was he? Does the SDMB need the legal issue?

Look, we had one Barack Obama, and he was a troll. Anyone who is gonna name themselves Donald Trump is also gonna be a troll. Why not nip it in the bud?

I am betting that the company’s lawyers are pretty hip as to the various laws brought up that affect this board.

[madsircool]

@DrDeth

Not to mention- it can be illegal-Penal Code 529 PC, California. Mind you, "makes it a crime to engage in false impersonation. This is defined as using another person’s name or identity to cause harm to that person or to gain an unjust advantage." so that is a issue- but how do we know WHY someone picked that name? Our president named poster certainly wasnt looking to bring glory onto that name, now was he? Does the SDMB need the legal issue?

California Penal Code Section 529 PC: False Impersonation

By posting bail or bond for a party by using someone else's name

By verifying, publishing, acknowledging or proving a document in the name of another person to pass it off as true (i.e. pretending to be someone else in order to cash a check made out to that person)

OR by committing an act that would cause another person to be civilly or criminally liable for the defendant's action, or to incur any other penalty or charge (i.e. providing another person’s name and identification when cited for speeding by police)

California Penal Code Section 529 PC requires that the defendant commit an additional act beyond merely falsely impersonating another person. This act could be signing their name or having booking photos or prints taken at the police department.

Since no one can commit any of these necessary conditions to violate the law on this message board, your concern is misplaced.

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

I am betting that the company’s lawyers are pretty hip as to the various laws brought up that affect this board.

I am pretty sure we were told that the first time that the “company’s lawyers” had to get involved there would be no more SDMB.

[Beckdawrek]

@Dr.Winston_OBoogie

If anyone is confused, I am not John Lennon.

Oh, man. I wanted you to be John Lennon, so bad.

If anyone famous or infamous is Beckdawrek I havn’t heard of them.
I could be ‘Becky with the good hair’ or ‘OMG Becky’, though.
Alas, I’m just bad, bad, bad.

[DrDeth]

@madsircool

California Penal Code Section 529 PC: False Impersonation

Since no one can commit any of these necessary conditions to violate the law on this message board, your concern is misplaced.

That’s just one CA section:

Impersonating Someone On The Internet: Legal or Illegal? - RM Warner Law |...

*It’s not an easy question to answer. A lot depends on the circumstances. The chances of being sued do skyrocket, however, if the posts under review fall into one of the four categories…Impersonation
Impersonating a law enforcement official, or other type of public servant, in a professional capacity, is illegal. Getting caught means serious ramifications — unless, of course, the content is clearly a work of satire or parody.

False Light
In some states, impersonating someone on a social media account or email could invite false light charges – especially since a U.S. court, in the not too distant past, ruled that “everyone is famous on Facebook.” While the public figure distinction may work against average Janes and Joes in IP lawsuits, the status could help in certain false light and defamation lawsuits.*

Can we agree that “Donald Trump” is not only a “other type of public servant”- but is a dude who loves to sue?

and remember the SDMB has to follow the laws of all fifty states.

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

I am pretty sure we were told that the first time that the “company’s lawyers” had to get involved there would be no more SDMB.

wow.

[Roderick_Femm]

@DrDeth

I concur.

That settles it for me. I don’t concur. I disagree. I disavow. And I digress.

And no, I’m not an ancient scion of a wicked family with three insane offspring and a butler who’s a mean drunk. I swear.

[Slash1972]

@DrDeth

That’s just one CA section:
Impersonating Someone On The Internet: Legal or Illegal? - RM Warner Law | Defamation Law, Internet Law, Business Law
*It’s not an easy question to answer. A lot depends on the circumstances. The chances of being sued do skyrocket, however, if the posts under review fall into one of the four categories…Impersonation
Impersonating a law enforcement official, or other type of public servant, in a professional capacity, is illegal. Getting caught means serious ramifications — unless, of course, the content is clearly a work of satire or parody.

False Light
In some states, impersonating someone on a social media account or email could invite false light charges – especially since a U.S. court, in the not too distant past, ruled that “everyone is famous on Facebook.” While the public figure distinction may work against average Janes and Joes in IP lawsuits, the status could help in certain false light and defamation lawsuits.*

Can we agree that “Donald Trump” is not only a “other type of public servant”- but is a dude who loves to sue?

and remember the SDMB has to follow the laws of all fifty states.

Are you being serious with this, or are you just having a discussion?

[madsircool]

@DrDeth

That’s just one CA section:
Impersonating Someone On The Internet: Legal or Illegal? - RM Warner Law | Defamation Law, Internet Law, Business Law
*It’s not an easy question to answer. A lot depends on the circumstances. The chances of being sued do skyrocket, however, if the posts under review fall into one of the four categories…Impersonation
Impersonating a law enforcement official, or other type of public servant, in a professional capacity, is illegal. Getting caught means serious ramifications — unless, of course, the content is clearly a work of satire or parody.

False Light
In some states, impersonating someone on a social media account or email could invite false light charges – especially since a U.S. court, in the not too distant past, ruled that “everyone is famous on Facebook.” While the public figure distinction may work against average Janes and Joes in IP lawsuits, the status could help in certain false light and defamation lawsuits.*

Can we agree that “Donald Trump” is not only a “other type of public servant”- but is a dude who loves to sue?

and remember the SDMB has to follow the laws of all fifty states.

The law makes it almost impossible for public Figures to sue people who lampoon them. Larry Flint in Hustler printed a fake ad about Jerry Falwell and incest File:Falwellhustler.jpg - Wikipedia and was sued. He lost the case 8-0 in the SCOTUS. We can parody public figures as long as its clear that we arent really them.

At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions." The First Amendment envisions that the sort of robust political debate that takes place in a democracy will occasionally yield speech critical of public figures who are “intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large”.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

That’s just one CA section:
Impersonating Someone On The Internet: Legal or Illegal? - RM Warner Law | Defamation Law, Internet Law, Business Law
*It’s not an easy question to answer. A lot depends on the circumstances. The chances of being sued do skyrocket, however, if the posts under review fall into one of the four categories…Impersonation
Impersonating a law enforcement official, or other type of public servant, in a professional capacity, is illegal. Getting caught means serious ramifications — unless, of course, the content is clearly a work of satire or parody.

False Light
In some states, impersonating someone on a social media account or email could invite false light charges – especially since a U.S. court, in the not too distant past, ruled that “everyone is famous on Facebook.” While the public figure distinction may work against average Janes and Joes in IP lawsuits, the status could help in certain false light and defamation lawsuits.*

Can we agree that “Donald Trump” is not only a “other type of public servant”- but is a dude who loves to sue?

and remember the SDMB has to follow the laws of all fifty states.

This is an excellent example of why I leave the lawish type stuff to the lawish type people.

[madsircool]

@madsircool

The law makes it almost impossible for public Figures to sue people who lampoon them. Larry Flint in Hustler printed a fake ad about Jerry Falwell and incest File:Falwellhustler.jpg - Wikipedia and was sued. He lost the case 8-0 in the SCOTUS. We can parody public figures as long as its clear that we arent really them.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - Wikipedia

This is a little unclear. Falwell lost the case, not Flynt.

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

This is an excellent example of why I leave the lawish type stuff to the lawish type people.

Certainly, that is always a good idea.

My point isnt that it IS illegal, but that it could possibly be a problem. Legal problems are bad. The board doesn’t make enuf pelf for legal problems.

And this is the cwaziest place. In most businesses it is “the customers are always right”- here it is the customers are always wrong. No matter what we- the paying customers suggest- the answer is almost always no- and in fact it is being ridiculed here.

Look, all I am asking- similar to what the Op wants- is to take things as they come and under consideration. We dont want a poster coming in here named Donald Trump as you KNOW he will be a troll. No new hard and fast rules, just a “Maybe a good idea, we will take under consideration and talk about it next time it happens”. what the hell would be so wrong about that?

But I think I know what would be wrong about that. It is a “us vs them” situation. They are the "police’ we are the “citizens.” The Police HATE when citizens suggest things. That is what it has come down too, the Mods are so used to being the cops here that any suggestions from the hoi polloi are dismissed out of hand.

Oh sure, once in a while they will reverse a Warning, but rarely.

Prove me wrong- say “Maybe a good idea, we will take under consideration and talk about it next time it happens”.

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

Certainly, that is always a good idea.

My point isnt that it IS illegal, but that it could possibly be a problem. Legal problems are bad. The board doesn’t make enuf pelf for legal problems.

And this is the cwaziest place. In most businesses it is “the customers are always right”- here it is the customers are always wrong. No matter what we- the paying customers suggest- the answer is almost always no- and in fact it is being ridiculed here.

Look, all I am asking- similar to what the Op wants- is to take things as they come and under consideration. We dont want a poster coming in here named Donald Trump as you KNOW he will be a troll. No new hard and fast rules, just a “Maybe a good idea, we will take under consideration and talk about it next time it happens”. what the hell would be so wrong about that?

But I think I know what would be wrong about that. It is a “us vs them” situation. They are the "police’ we are the “citizens.” The Police HATE when citizens suggest things. That is what it has come down too, the Mods are so used to being the cops here that any suggestions from the hoi polloi are dismissed out of hand.

Oh sure, once in a while they will reverse a Warning, but rarely.

Prove me wrong- say “Maybe a good idea, we will take under consideration and talk about it next time it happens”.

Not even wrong, and I can’t think of any way to untwist this “argument” of yours so I’m not going to try.

[Ruken]

@DrDeth

Not only posters read this site.

Still a near-zero non-problem.

[Telemark]

@DrDeth

Prove me wrong- say “Maybe a good idea, we will take under consideration and talk about it next time it happens”.

We talked about it in the past, and decided it was a solution in search of a problem. I can’t seen that anything has changed.

[Chronos]

If the poster who went by the name Barack Obama claimed to actually be the 44th President of the United States, then there might be a problem. But he didn’t. He used that screen name, but made no pretext that the screen name was any more accurate than it is for any of the myriad other users here who use something other than their own name.

And even if he had, well, that would have been a problem, but it wouldn’t be a problem that would be solved by a policy like this. For starters, if someone posts here with the name of a famous person, how do we know it isn’t that person? The actual 44th President of the United States is welcome to create an account here and start posting, if he chooses. And he could even tell us that that’s who he is, if he chooses.

Or, if you want a more concrete example, should we have banned The Bad Astronomer for presenting himself as well-known science popularizer Phil Plait? At what point did we know that he really was Plait?

[muldoonthief]

@Intergalactic_Gladiator

Looks like I’m safe.

You’re not an Intergalactic Gladiator? Then how do you explain this?

[tricoteuse]

I sure hope you’re either a thief named Muldoon or someone who steals Muldoons!

[DrDeth]

@Chronos

Or, if you want a more concrete example, should we have banned The Bad Astronomer for presenting himself as well-known science popularizer Phil Plait? At what point did we know that he really was Plait?

The Bad Astronomer is a pretty cool guy and known around the interwebs. But hardly a “well known political person”.

Do as you will.

[Slash1972]

I think usernames with “Dr” in them should be banned unless the user can prove they are a doctor.