Arizona outlaws trolling

[sourmìlk]

I'm sad to say that this is the only forum where I know for certain that, if a user posts that, he's joking.

[Weeks]

Well, I wouldn't take for granted a death threat from someone I have no idea about, even if I think the probability is high that they are joking. And since it is actually illegal, I bet you don't want your posts to say that.

[sourmìlk]

Well yeah, I can still see why you'd be uncomfortable with that.

[Qaanol]

Yeah, remind me to edit that out before I run for president.

[Arariel]

Oh, wait, the police don't have to obey the law! (I forgot where I lived for a moment there.)

Yeah, Earth?

I actually live in ... I live in Arizona!

(starts crying)

There, I said it! ... I can't help it ...

It's okay... so do I... -cries-

[Save Point]

And Lucrece, that sort of bullying-to-death shit is /already/ covered under harassment laws, which means the problem isn't a lack of relevant laws, but a lack of interest in enforcement (and fucked up culture and environments that encourage that sort of shit).

Not in Arizona, I believe. All "electronic means" refers to in the unamended statute are machines that aid in making multiple phone calls at once or constantly telephoning one person, etc. There is, in fact, a gap in Arizona's harassment laws that effectively insulates anyone acting one way online that would be criminal acting the same way over, say, the telephone or in person.

This proposal basically takes its telecommunications harassment statute and replaces "telephone" with "electronic devices." This is problematic for two reasons: (1) it is (obviously) not tailored to the difference between internet communications and telephonic communications, and; (2) the telecommunications statute has already come under fire for being unconstitutionally vague, being upheld in some applications but not in others.

I see what the legislature is doing, and I think the intent is laudable. It's silly to criminalize behavior and then give the state no cause of action against people who who do the very same thing through another medium. They're basically trying to make a new amendment to an old law to remedy a new manifestation of an old problem. Writing laws and anticipating unintended consequences can frankly be a bit hard. At this point, it's a matter of means that needs to be addressed, primarily by narrowing the scope of behavior it captures - perhaps by omitting "annoy" and "offend," or by adding a section that states the forbidden behavior needs to be addressed to a specific person, since a lot of internet communication has wide audiences (e.g., message boards, Facebook.) But the goal seems fair to me. As I said earlier, I don't see why harassment should be criminalized but balk at trying to cover the very same behavior over the Internet simply because the medium is different. The 'net is largely unregulated and for very good reasons, but that doesn't mean it's entirely Mad Max and that you should be without recourse should, for example, your pissed off ex start to send you credible threats through e-mail.

What I would do is look to states that have likewise attempted to catch up to technology. Some states, such as Massachusetts, already have statutes criminalizing harassment that includes internet communications. There are a few distinctions, namely that they limit harassment to "willfully and maliciously [engaging] in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress." So, no "annoy," "offend," etc. and it's directed at a specific person.* My point being that AZ is basically one in a trend of states attempting to catch up to technology and that their biggest fault is making the statute too broad, which can and probably will be tweaked down the road, especially if it ends up clogging its courts with frivolous offensive comic scans cases instead of the sort of behavior the legislature actually intended to capture.

It should go without saying that I think their telecommunications statute could overall do with some narrowing, but it's a bigger problem with internet communications, which I think is pretty obvious to anyone who has ever spent considerable amount of time, well, actually on the internet.

*Arizona's statutory definition of harassment already limits it to behavior directed at a specific person, so by simply omitting the overbroad language, they could overcome that hurdle.

EDIT: As an aside, it looks like the jurisdiction hurdle over the internet becomes a dormant commerce clause issue more often than not, particularly with state crimes.

[Proginoskes]

Not sure what cops you're used to, but the ones here are usually too busy dealing with crimes like murder or drug dealing, or you know, black guys in nice cars. Somehow I doubt the cops in Arizona will find time off from both their actual work and their important job of harassing people with brown skin to deal with internet trolls.

OTOH, this could be a chance to cut down on unemployment. Just imagine the ads ...

MAKE $ $ $ FAST!!!

Unemployed? Know how to use the Internet? Wanna get back at bullies that pick on you online?

Then join the police force and earn big $ $ $ finding offensive content on the Internet and putting the perpetrators in jail!

Arizona. Why would anyone ever go to Arizona? I was attracted by the Nothing.

I came here because ASU offered me a job right out of graduate school (Visiting Assistant Professor).

My goal is to move to a blue state before I die. (I've lived in red states as long as I can remember.)

EDITED: because the forums don't like it when you put three $s in a row.

[Djehutynakht]

They're gonna need a bigger prison.

It'd be cheaper to build a fence around the state.

You have a point.

They have a fourth of that covered already, I believe.

[Proginoskes]

They're gonna need a bigger prison.

It'd be cheaper to build a fence around the state.

You have a point.

They have a fourth of that covered already, I believe.

As of January 2010, it was a tenth of a fourth.

The problem is they can't hire enough Mexicans.

[Save Point]

Revisions of AZ internet harassment bill planned.

Vogt said Wednesday that the bill would be amended to say those harassing communications must be directed at a specific person and must be "unwanted or unsolicited." Those updates did not appear yet on an online version of the bill viewed Wednesday morning.

We'll have to keep an eye out for the revisions.

[Qaanol]

Oh good now I have a defense! KnightExemplar was totally asking for it, the way his or her post was dressed with words. Totally. Asking for it. Defense. They just added that to the legislation text, it must be an improvement!

[Save Point]

Oh good now I have a defense! KnightExemplar was totally asking for it, the way his or her post was dressed with words. Totally. Asking for it. Defense. They just added that to the legislation text, it must be an improvement!

They haven't even concluded or elaborated upon the new revisions. I mean, I don't really understand complaining about the scope of a bill and then immediately dismissing the attempts to revise that legislation at the behest of civil liberties advocates. This doesn't mean the legislature gets a free pass or a cookie, but we should at least wait to see what the finalized revisions are instead of immediately assuming bad faith.

I do think Vogt is mistaken, though. Facebook's privacy settings are such that a lot of what you write is visible depending on your friend's privacy settings, which you have much less control over. Navigating this would effectively require abstaining from Facebook altogether, honestly.

[Proginoskes]

Revisions of AZ internet harassment bill planned.

Vogt said Wednesday that the bill would be amended to say those harassing communications must be directed at a specific person and must be "unwanted or unsolicited." Those updates did not appear yet on an online version of the bill viewed Wednesday morning.

We'll have to keep an eye out for the revisions.

Woo hoo! ... Now I can say I'm going to kill everyone whose online name is "Less Than Liz", and they won't be able to go after me, since it's not directed at a specific person!

[lutzj]

Revisions of AZ internet harassment bill planned.

Vogt said Wednesday that the bill would be amended to say those harassing communications must be directed at a specific person and must be "unwanted or unsolicited." Those updates did not appear yet on an online version of the bill viewed Wednesday morning.

We'll have to keep an eye out for the revisions.

Woo hoo! ... Now I can say I'm going to kill everyone whose online name is "Less Than Liz", and they won't be able to go after me, since it's not directed at a specific person!

Eh, you might still be in trouble here. Any reasonable person would assume in this context that you are targeting a specific person.

[sourmìlk]

By the way, if any of you troll me, I won't approve, but considering my attitude and style of posting, feel free to use this post as evidence that I was, in fact, asking for it.

[Proginoskes]

Revisions of AZ internet harassment bill planned.

Vogt said Wednesday that the bill would be amended to say those harassing communications must be directed at a specific person and must be "unwanted or unsolicited." Those updates did not appear yet on an online version of the bill viewed Wednesday morning.

We'll have to keep an eye out for the revisions.

Woo hoo! ... Now I can say I'm going to kill everyone whose online name is "Less Than Liz", and they won't be able to go after me, since it's not directed at a specific person!

Eh, you might still be in trouble here. Any reasonable person would assume in this context that you are targeting a specific person.

Yes, a reasonable person. But what about a lawyer?

[Save Point]

Yes, a reasonable person. But what about a lawyer?

Lawyers can sometimes be held to a higher standard depending on the cause of action because they hold themselves out as having special skills, but courts don't usually apply this to your typical plebe, so reasonable person is the standard that matters

[HungryHobo]

I don't see the problem if this is more tailored toward the issue of cyberbullying, which does have casualties.

The problem is that it's like being ok with internet filtering as long as it's just for copyright enforcement or tapping everyones phones as long as it's just for catching drug dealers or reading everyones email as long as it's just for catching pedophiles. and if you object then it must mean you're on the side of the drug dealers, the pedophiles, the bullies or the pirates or that you're belittling the plight of their victims if you say "you know what, the price is just far far too high, it's not worth it".

nobody likes bullies and any counsel that it's not worth it will be met with the kind of hostility that we've seen in this topic but it doesn't matter what laws you bring in, people are remarkably good at making each other feel bad. If you can't drive an unstable teen to suicide by calling them names and telling them to go fuck themselves then bullies will just drive them to suicide by all the more subtle means. When everyone knows you can't say "fuck off" to someone it just makes equally crushing when they just say "go away". People are remarkably good at making it clear in the most soul crushing and depressing but legal way that they don't like a person and what they think of them... and after a few suicides and heartbreaking notes they'll try to legislate against even that.

once you're down to words alone people will always find a way to make each other feel bad. You can't stop people from whispering behind someones back, turning their noses up at someone or saying "nobody likes you".

[Griffin]

Less Than Liz
The issue there is, reading the Mass law you quoted, what is made illegal is, you know, actual harassment. That involves harassment.

Not only is the Arizona law overly broad, extremely overly broad, but it also completely fails to mention anything having to do with harassment or, you know, the primary components of harassment.

I can't see harassment as being the intended target of the law. It is included, at best, tangentially.

So... is Arizona just totally incompetent at writing reasonable legislation? If this is, in fact, a harassment law, how did they manage to neglect mentioning the key aspects of harassment in it?

[Save Point]

Less Than Liz
The issue there is, reading the Mass law you quoted, what is made illegal is, you know, actual harassment. That involves harassment.

Not only is the Arizona law overly broad, extremely overly broad, but it also completely fails to mention anything having to do with harassment or, you know, the primary components of harassment.

Which is why I said "I would look to other states." As in, I would look to other states' successful laws for guidance in crafting harassment laws that target internet communication, one of which might be MA. Obviously I think the AZ statute as written is too broad because, well, I said as much in my post.