The more I read from Rep. Noel Hamiel about his Blog Control Acts, the less I think he understands what his own bills would do. He tells SDPB's Cory Klumper that neither infringes on free speech. But they do: the bills impose new legal and technical obligations on bloggers and other Internet users that make it more difficult to engage in online expression. That's infringement.
Perhaps counsel will advise Rep. Hamiel to defend his bills by pleading, "Yeah, but do you have a better plan?"
Actually, yes: let the courts handle it under current law:
“While [the proposed legislation] may not be totally unreasonable, I do think it does have a tendency to restrict the flow of information and ideas and the exchange of those, and that’s critical,” says [Sioux Falls attorney John] Arneson. “Not everything we hear is going to be good, but if we were to start closing doors and windows on all that we do hear and say and what we want to hear and say I think we’d be much worse off.”
Arneson says the state would be better off if courts decide on individual cases [Cory Klumper, "House Bills Address Anonymous Libel on the Internet," SDPB.org, 2010.02.09].