We think she might be.  Because her particular gripe today is about character assassinations on the Internet.  Which suits us fine — we feel like John Wilkes Booth today.

The 212th legislature Assembly # 1327 sponsored by Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi to hold Internet providers responsible for content in New Jersey should set the "code of conduct" for public forums in every state.

She’s talking about this bill.

Using the Internet posting "anonymous" nicknames to slander and defame people that one does not like or agree with their beliefs or a political stance should not be tolerated.

In the third grade, Mrs. Gray made us diagram sentences.  People over a certain age know what I’m talking about.

Mrs. Gray’s head just exploded.

There needs to be a"criteria" clause established and maintained regarding respect of persons.

We love that sentence, but we’re not sure why.  Maybe it’s the "and maintained" part, which Kaye perhaps added as an afterthought.  Maybe it’s the use of the word "persons" instead of "people".

If a person took the approach of slandering or defaming another person in public or the workplace — this would be considered "harassment" and liable under defamation laws resulting in lawsuits, and it should be inappropriate behavior on the computer as well.

Wow.  And to think that we sat through NYU Law for three years, when we could have had Kaye explain defamation and slander so . . . what’s the word . . . incorrectly . . . in one tortured run-on sentence.  What is she talking about?

I am talking about personal attacks here.

Okay.  Gotcha.

When many people are void of respecting others, sometimes restrictions pertaining to code of ethics and conduct have to be established. Search engines such as Google, MSN, etc. allow defamatory content to be listed in their engines without anyone effectively overseeing or monitoring "abusive" practices.

We’ve also noticed that the word "moron" is in most dictionaries.  Let’s oversee that, too.

The people who (intentionally) set up blog boards to defame others should be held accountable for the content.

But if you accidentally set up a blog board to defame someone, you’re in the clear.

Posting a feeble "we are not responsible for the content of the posts" is irresponsible and should be liable. We should all have a responsibility to show good taste and set examples.

Kaye, are you aware that at the bottom of every Kaye Grogan column on Renew America, one sees this?

Maybe you shouldn’t be calling Alan Keyes, your web host, "irresponsible".  We’re just saying .

Oftentimes, underage teens participate in inflammatory conduct on the web, without their parents being any the wiser of their slanderous activity.

"Kids Razzing Other Kids" – Tonight on DATELINE!

The bill sponsored by Biondi would also put the burden of compensatory and punitive damages along with lawyer and court costs on the shoulders of Internet Service Providers.

Unless they, you know, win.

The bill would also require an operator of any interactive computer service or Internet provider to establish, maintain, and enforce a policy where those posting messages on a public forum website must be identified through legal names and addresses.

Okay, so what’s your legal address, Kaye?

This measure would make those who post false or defamatory statements liable for their actions to the courts if they are sued for defamation of character.

You mean if you are sued for defamation of character, you’re liable?  Just by being sued?  No trial or nothing?

But we have to give credit where credit is due: Kaye hasn’t mixed up the words "libel" and "liable".  Yet.

There is also the abuse of copyright infringement of posting articles or excepts from articles with the sole purpose of defaming writers on blog boards.

There’s this thing called the "fair use doctrine".  As explained here, it is legally permissible to reprint copyrighted material for the purpose of criticism. 

For example, one could quote from Kaye’s *cough* "copyrighted" *cough* article to point out that she is an idiot who doesn’t know the difference between "excerpt" and "except".

Illegal uses of copyrighted photographs are also tolerated by search engines.

We need more intolerant search engines.

Let’s look at what is considered to be libelous in character assassination: The publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation in written form.

That’s why we never keep our reputation in written form.  That way we can’t be libelized.

An oral character assassination is considered to be slander.

And a physical character assassination is considered to be homicide.

Both practices are considered to be defamatory and therefore can and should be libelous.

But you just said that libel is just written "character assassination".  So how can oral character assassination (slander) be written character assassination ("libelous")?  Oh, we’re so confused.

Or wait.  Did Kaye just confuse "libelous" and "liablous"?  Granted, "liablous" isn’t actually a word, but we have to give Kaye some slack.  She probably meant "…should be held liable".

If the legislation passes in New Jersey requiring that ISP owners be held accountable for what they allow to be posted on public forum boards, the law and repercussions will be crystal clear.

Um, we guess so, but since we’re not internet service provider owners, we don’t have to worry.

Since Patrick Henry was a man of decency and integrity-somehow, I feel he would be adamantly opposed to how abusive "freedom of speech" has become over the last 30-35 years. Henry would probably not be the strong advocate in modern times he was on March 23, 1775, if he was alive today, much less proclaim his famous outburst: "give me liberty or give me death!"

Shorter Kaye: "Having failed at finding historical support for my position, I’m just going to pretend that the Founding Fathers would agree with me."

Many people are unaware that Patrick Henry a lawyer by profession, rode into Culpepper, Virginia and found a minister tied to a thrashing post for preaching the "Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Wait, we think we’ve heard this one.  "Then Patrick Henry rode further and found a rabbi tied to a thrashing post…."

The minister along with several other ministers refused to be licensed by the governor. I don’t blame him, because this was a movement to control religious freedoms.

We never heard this probably apocryphal story, so we did a little research.  It seems that Patrick Henry simply kept on riding, since we couldn’t find any information suggesting that Henry freed the minister.  In fact, it looks like the minister died three days later.

But this incident was (supposedly) the inspiration for a stirring Patrick Henry "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech later that month.  So some good came out of it.  Except from the minister’s perspective, I suppose.

What a selfish prick, that Patrick Henry.

This miscarriage of injustice along with others eventually inspired Patrick Henry’s opposition to restrictions on freedom of speech — not for mankind (in the future) to indulge in pornographic material or use vile profanity.

Only guessing here, but don’t we, as a society, prefer miscarriages of injustice?

Everything in that era was based on morality and establishing a country based on godly principles. Patrick Henry was also opposed to slavery.

Yes, Henry was opposed to slavery, but owned slaves anyway.  According to the Patrick Henry Memorial Website, he refused to free his slaves, even after acknowledging that his slave ownership flew in the face of the freedom-loving rhetoric that he espoused.  I guess hypocrisy is one of those "godly principles"?

You see, Kaye?  History is pretty interesting as it is — you don’t have to make it up. [UPDATE:  Speaking of Henry, evangelicals, and interesting history…]

We owe a debt of gratitude to Patrick Henry for being instrumental in the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

That’s right.  We should thank Henry for providing us with such rights as the freedom of speech, because his efforts allow us to write articles in which we advocate the punishment of free speech.

There are respectful ways to express differences of opinions and resorting to personal attacks suggests the people in opposition are void of being able to defend their opposing views in a coherent effective manner. In the process their credibility suffers.

Would that we all could express our views in a coherent manner like Kaye.  Like her next paragraph…

The synopsis of the legislature offered by Jerry J. Biondi: Makes certain operators of interactive computer services and Internet service providers liable to persons injured by false or defamatory messages posted on public forum web sites.

Whoa, Kaye!  While we were struggling to find the subject of that last sentence, we realized that you started off this column by saying that the bill’s sponsor is "Peter J. Biondi".  Now his name is "Jerry"?  And he’s griping about people writing things using pseudonyms?

At least this is a step in the right direction.

Well, it’s a step in something.