Arizona outlaws trolling

[dhokarena56]

Brought to you by Tea Party supporter, semi-Neo-Nazi white supremacist and general fucknugget State Senator Jan Brewer, this bill (link to article in Forbes) would- and I quote verbatim from the bill- make it
"unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person."

Well, that's just...it's...

Unfortunately, I'm not very good with hacking, and so breaking into Jan Brewer's webpage and making it redirect to Blue Waffle is rather out of the question for me.

Well done, Arizona; once again, you do your country proud.

[++$_]

Ken from Popehat has a pretty good response.

[lutzj]

This isn't too outlandish; there's another thread on the front page about a Welsh man going to jail for offensive tweets.

The idea still doesn't stand up to common sense or the Bill of Rights.

[ShortChelsea]

Is Arizona trolling us? I do not see this working out.

[KnightExemplar]

Well... threats of force and intimidation probably should be addressed. (I'm pretty sure they're illegal somewhere, or at least make you liable for some sort of tort law if you can come up with the evidence). Ex: posting something online like "I'm going to kill you if you don't do X" should be illegal IMO.

Annoying and Offending though? Erm.. everything is annoying and offensive online >_<

[poxic]

[TMT] Your face is annoying and offensive. [/TMT]

[Lucrece]

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

[Djehutynakht]

They're gonna need a bigger prison.

If this goes into effect it will be a bigger failure than prohibition. I expect troll rates to soar.

[Princess Marzipan]

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

It doesn't matter what it's "tailored towards" if the result is that I could be arrested for telling you to fuck yourself.

Actually, it looks like that law means I could be arrested for telling you I could be arrested for telling you to fuck yourself. I haven't told you to, nor have I even suggested it more than implicitly (let me explicitly state that the decision to fuck yourself is yours alone to make, and you should feel no compulsion or compunction on my behalf to do so), but yeah, looks like I should avoid traveling to Arizona now.

[Proginoskes]

Brought to you by Tea Party supporter, semi-Neo-Nazi white supremacist and general fucknugget State Senator Jan Brewer,

Bad news, dhokarena56 ... Brewer is the Governor, not a State Senator.

this bill (link to article in Forbes) would- and I quote verbatim from the bill- make it
"unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person."

It's gonna be awfully hard for the police to crack down on "illegals" then ...

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

I'd move out of the state, but then the average IQ would drop another 20 points ...

Annoying and Offending though? Erm.. everything is annoying and offensive online >_<

Don't I know it ...

They're gonna need a bigger prison.

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

[Princess Marzipan]

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

Yeah, Earth?

[Proginoskes]

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 ...

[Ormurinn]

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

Limiting the soverign right to free speech for the sake of hurt feelings has far more casualties than any kind of bullying ever will.

[Lucrece]

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

Limiting the soverign right to free speech for the sake of hurt feelings has far more casualties than any kind of bullying ever will.

"Hurt feelings". Way to be dismissive just to make a point. "The law's too broad and can lead to haphazard enforcement" is apparently too hard. You just had to shit on bullied victims and call psychic damage "hurt feelings".

[Princess Marzipan]

Look on the bright side. If you checked this thread from Arizona, you could get Ormurinn arrested.

[sourmìlk]

God damn. I hate trolls probably a bit more than the next guy, but I think exactly what they deserve is nothing more than the swift justice of the ban hammer. It's horribly contrary to the first amendment that one should be punished for trying to offend someone.

[Qaanol]

Offensive speech is the kind of speech that needs to be protected the most. If you don’t have the freedom to make offensive speech, then you don’t have freedom of speech.

[Ormurinn]

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

Limiting the soverign right to free speech for the sake of hurt feelings has far more casualties than any kind of bullying ever will.

"Hurt feelings". Way to be dismissive just to make a point. "The law's too broad and can lead to haphazard enforcement" is apparently too hard. You just had to shit on bullied victims and call psychic damage "hurt feelings".

Thats just it, its not a case of the law being "too broad," its that limiting peoples right to free speech, which is the foundation of everything good in society, ISNT RIGHT. You cant take away just a little of someones rights, any infringement is an attack on a fundamental liberty. The right to state your opinion is important, any limitation whatsoever, even if its for ostensibly good reasons, is disgusting. You can't enforce totalitarian humanism on people - there is a right to be mean.

I'll admit that I should have been more tactful, however. Your statement made me angry and i responded in the heat of the moment.

[sourmìlk]

Offensive speech is the kind of speech that needs to be protected the most. If you don’t have the freedom to make offensive speech, then you don’t have freedom of speech.

Agreed. Nobody's ever tried to outlaw unobjectionable speech. (For a relative value of 'unobjectionable').

[Griffin]

Offensive speech is the kind of speech that needs to be protected the most. If you don’t have the freedom to make offensive speech, then you don’t have freedom of speech.

I disagree. The right to speech that threatens the positions of those in power is the speech that needs to be protected most. Conveniently, this law pretty much outlaws that as well, mind you.

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). All this will accomplish is letting them ignore things like that even more completely because they have so many new targets to enforce the law against that they actually care about.

It lets them continue to pretend they give a shit without having to actually do anything.

I honestly can't see any good come out of this law.

[++$_]

The interpretations I've seen say that this is not actually intended to ban trolling (obviously), or strongly worded blog posts, or whatever. They're trying to update laws that would make it a crime to make harassing phone calls.

The only problem is that because they've never used the technology they're trying to regulate, nor talked to people who do, they're totally clueless about how people actually communicate on the Internet. They don't realize that many forms of communication are not at all like phone calls.

[addams]

Offensive speech is the kind of speech that needs to be protected the most. If you don’t have the freedom to make offensive speech, then you don’t have freedom of speech.

O.K. Let us start there.
Explain this to me.
What I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears is offensive, ignorant rants of the mean spirited using up every available band width and all available time. Is that what we want?

There is more band width in cyber space. And; Like with TV we can turn away.
Or; We could stay up all night, because, someone on the internet was wrong.

http://womenshealthfoundation.org/blog/?p=2336

The internet allows us to have and share the sublime. It also allows for damaging lies to become a part of our culture.

There are Public Venues for Speaking ones mind. City Hall. Three minutes each week anyone, that is a citizen, can bring their body, photo ID, sign up and speak their minds. Three minutes per week.

We have the right to say anything we want for three minutes. TV and the internet gets to say anything they want 24/7. How can Real People compete with that?

People attempt to become more and more shocking without any responsibility to truth and fair play? Are Trolls fighting fire with fire? Is that the kind of speech that we want protected?

Is it like a Poker Game? "I will see your disgusting lie and raise you and offencive half truth."

We do need protection to be able to form and communicate unpopular ideas. To shock intimidate and purposefully offend does not advance civil discourse.

Sure. Three minutes of insults might be fun. I, sort of, did that. The insults were a bit back handed. I was careful about what I said. I did not type words anonymously on a computer screen. I was a real live flesh and blood human being standing at a podium reading my statements.

I do not support AZ's new law! What shocks and offends me will not shock and offend the law makers of AZ.

There is the problem with mob rule. They may be more powerful. They may be greater in number. They are still wrong!

I have no idea what will cure human beings of being mean spirited and childish. A new law written by the mean spirited and childish will not do it.

[emceng]

The problem I see is this. The law will do nothing to stop online bullying. Instead, it will be used to punish someone for either 1) acting like a dick, or 2) being disliked by someone in power.

Basically, it will be one more law that will be thrown on the pile and never used - until there's a tragedy, or someone with an axe to grind. Then a citizen is thrown in jail or severely fined for exercising their free speech rights. I think selective enforcement of the law is a big issue.

[addams]

The problem I see is this. The law will do nothing to stop online bullying. Instead, it will be used to punish someone for either 1) acting like a dick, or 2) being disliked by someone in power.

Basically, it will be one more law that will be thrown on the pile and never used - until there's a tragedy, or someone with an axe to grind. Then a citizen is thrown in jail or severely fined for exercising their free speech rights. I think selective enforcement of the law is a big issue.

I think you are right.

[omgryebread]

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.

Hard to imagine that the internet is not the center of the universe for everyone, but I don't see the law as a big deal. It won't help, because it won't be enforced, but it won't hurt, because it won't be enforced.

[mike-l]

Thats just it, its not a case of the law being "too broad," its that limiting peoples right to free speech, which is the foundation of everything good in society, ISNT RIGHT. You cant take away just a little of someones rights, any infringement is an attack on a fundamental liberty. The right to state your opinion is important, any limitation whatsoever, even if its for ostensibly good reasons, is disgusting. You can't enforce totalitarian humanism on people - there is a right to be mean.

Except for slander, libel, perjury, uttering death threats, etc etc etc. All rights have limitations.

Having said that, I have a huge amount of trouble justifying outlawing 'go fuck yourself'

[Princess Marzipan]

because it won't be enforced

Then why should we have the law?

[Dauric]

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.

Hard to imagine that the internet is not the center of the universe for everyone, but I don't see the law as a big deal. It won't help, because it won't be enforced, but it won't hurt, because it won't be enforced.

Laws like these aren't enforced by the police they way they enforce say traffic violations or investigate murder. Laws like these are enforced by lawyers and the police are only involved if the defendant doesn't come in to court or commits some other contempt of court offense. The cases are brought to court by people with the money to hire a lawyer to bring the case.

---

I'm just curious if someone out of state harasses an Arizonan does the state try to extradite, or does this just prevent Arizonans from harassing the rest of us.

[emceng]

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.

Hard to imagine that the internet is not the center of the universe for everyone, but I don't see the law as a big deal. It won't help, because it won't be enforced, but it won't hurt, because it won't be enforced.

That's partly my point. People won't be arrested for it until there is a media circus about something, or someone in power/with money has a vendetta.

So it won't be 'person x broke the law, they're going to jail'. It will be 'I don't like person x, what can we accuse them of to send them to jail?'

[Griffin]

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.

Which is exactly the point. The very nature of the law means it will need to be selectively enforced. And tell me - do you think they're going to be selectively enforcing it against people that bully gay kids, or people that say something unpleasant about the police or those in a position of power?

Hard to imagine that the internet is not the center of the universe for everyone, but I don't see the law as a big deal. It won't help, because it won't be enforced, but it won't hurt, because it won't be enforced.

Except you've got no evidence it won't be enforced, and there's quite a bit of evidence these sorts of laws are enforced specifically against people those enforcing it do not like.

It's one of those "If we make everyone a criminal, then it's easy to get rid of the ones we don't like" laws.

[omgryebread]

because it won't be enforced

Then why should we have the law?

We shouldn't, not as worded anyway. Not sure where I said we should.

Laws like these aren't enforced by the police they way they enforce say traffic violations or investigate murder. Laws like these are enforced by lawyers and the police are only involved if the defendant doesn't come in to court or commits some other contempt of court offense. The cases are brought to court by people with the money to hire a lawyer to bring the case.

Not sure on Arizona law (and I'm not really strong on criminal law in general) but isn't this criminal law and not tort? As in, I can't bring a suit personally, but have to get the DA to prosecute? And I could sue under tort law with or without the law.

Which is exactly the point. The very nature of the law means it will need to be selectively enforced. And tell me - do you think they're going to be selectively enforcing it against people that bully gay kids, or people that say something unpleasant about the police or those in a position of power?

I find it really hard to imagine the DA prosecuting people who said mean things about politicians online (except presumably ones that were already borderline illegal "Governor X should be shot" kind of things.) And if they did, that's why we have juries that are probably not comfortable calling any old "fuck tha police" post "intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person."

Except you've got no evidence it won't be enforced, and there's quite a bit of evidence these sorts of laws are enforced specifically against people those enforcing it do not like.

It's one of those "If we make everyone a criminal, then it's easy to get rid of the ones we don't like" laws.

Of course it's a bad law. I agree with the general sentiment of the law, because:

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

But as he said, it should be more tailored than it is.

I just don't think it's that bad as is. It'll be another among a hoard of countless obscure, bad, laws that states gather. It just mentions the internet, so internet communities pick up on it fast and treat it as the new Patriot Act.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

Annoying and Offending though? Erm.. everything is annoying and offensive online >_<

And yet you still go the extra mile.

[Dauric]

Laws like these aren't enforced by the police they way they enforce say traffic violations or investigate murder. Laws like these are enforced by lawyers and the police are only involved if the defendant doesn't come in to court or commits some other contempt of court offense. The cases are brought to court by people with the money to hire a lawyer to bring the case.

Not sure on Arizona law (and I'm not really strong on criminal law in general) but isn't this criminal law and not tort? As in, I can't bring a suit personally, but have to get the DA to prosecute? And I could sue under tort law with or without the law.

The point I'm getting at is that the police won't be involved so that they may or may not be too busy to deal with it is not a check on the effects of this law. The lawyers go straight to the DA with the page screenshots of the criminal activity in question. Now sure you or I hire a lawyer to take our grievances to the DA and we're likely to be brushed off because they're busy, however Incumbent Governor goes to the DA with screenshots of the internet trolls accusing him/her/it of having raped and killed a girl in 1990 and casually mentions how the DA's job is up for re-election along with the Governor's and suddenly the DA finds the time to squeeze in this case...

[addams]

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.

Hard to imagine that the internet is not the center of the universe for everyone, but I don't see the law as a big deal. It won't help, because it won't be enforced, but it won't hurt, because it won't be enforced.

Laws like these aren't enforced by the police they way they enforce say traffic violations or investigate murder. Laws like these are enforced by lawyers and the police are only involved if the defendant doesn't come in to court or commits some other contempt of court offense. The cases are brought to court by people with the money to hire a lawyer to bring the case.

---

I'm just curious if someone out of state harasses an Arizonan does the state try to extradite, or does this just prevent Arizonans from harassing the rest of us.

That is so funny. At first.

I heard that the US went to New Zealand to enforce its internet laws. So; Arizona can go to The Neatherlands to enforce its laws. Right?

Arizona is bigger and badder than Holland. The only chance The Neatherlands has is that with the name change and its small size, Arizona will not be able to find it.

They have the right to ask Homeland Security to assist them in protecting themselves, Ma, and Apple Pie. Homeland is not constrained by borders.
There must be someone in that large organization that can find Holland.

"The Universe in not only stranger than we think it is; It is stranger than we can think it is."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Stanley_Eddington

The selective enforcement frightens me. Who knows what can be attributed to me? I have typed plenty of stupid shit. Who has not? Back in the old days that shit got edited out. Now it is in 'the cloud' forever. Even if, I did not type it.

But; But., Umm. Sarah Palin did it! A woman in Arizona was shot by an inspired wing nut. Somehow that is O.K. Arizona! Maybe, they are responding in a way that DOES make sense. We can consider it as a possibility.

Why Arizona? Are the people more frightened there than in other places. Could be. Arizona is weird. The Grand Canyon is there. The Grand Canyon is like a double negative. There is so much nothing, that it becomes something, BIG.

Arizona has monsoons. It does!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Monsoon

Arizona has some tiny little blonde scorpion that is fricking terrible. That thing can get into any crack that is large enough to slip a US dime into. I have never been stung. I don't want to! I check my boots, Every time!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_ba ... pion#Venom

They have plants that look like huge people. At night against the sky, those things look like people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saguaro
http://www.google.com/search?q=saguaro+ ... 41&bih=291

Arizona has suffocating heat and deadly cold.

Arizona shares a border with Mexico; A whole different country! And; They have Mexicans. Mexicans, kind of, look like Arabs. Coincidence? Yes. I think so. Please, do not put it to a vote in Arizona.

On top of all of that; Arizona is where the Army keeps its intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Huachuca

Shit like that makes people believe other weird shit more easily. Sedona. Anyone?
Is it any wonder that the people of Arizona grasp at any possibility to be in control of their world? Their world is harsh and dangerous; Beautiful and frightening like a Dali print.

I have been there. Most people stay inside climate controlled environments, all the time. Can you blame them? Poor frightened Arizonans.

The fact that blunts the edge of my compassion is: A frightened animal is a dangerous animal.

Arizona people are animals, too.

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

[folkhero]

I find it really hard to imagine the DA prosecuting people who said mean things about politicians online (except presumably ones that were already borderline illegal "Governor X should be shot" kind of things.) And if they did, that's why we have juries that are probably not comfortable calling any old "fuck tha police" post "intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person."

You've heard of Sheriff Joe Arpaio right? He can harass and bully political opponents with investigations and charges that never lead to jury trials. "Everybody is guilty of something" laws like this one only enhance the ability of those in power to exert their will over the rest of us.

Actually, most cases don't lead to jury trials, they are settled out of court or pleaded down. If you were an attorney and your client was facing internet harassment charges under this law and she broke the letter of the law (but not the spirit of the law [at least in your mind]) would you be confident that the jury would use jury nullification? If it were me, I would probably accept a deal.

[Weeks]

Ex: posting something online like "I'm going to kill you if you don't do X" should be illegal IMO.

...You don't see how this could be problematic? Like, at all?

[sourmìlk]

I'm pretty sure that direct threats of violence are already illegal.

What this law does is it outlaws vulgarity and insults, not threats of violence or libel.

[Роберт]

Ex: posting something online like "I'm going to kill you if you don't do X" should be illegal IMO.

...You don't see how this could be problematic? Like, at all?

Real death threats and coercion should certainly be illegal. I'm very certain that they already are, of course.

[Qaanol]

posting something online like "I'm going to kill you if you don't do X" should be illegal IMO.

That’s called “criminal threatening” and “coercion” and it’s already illegal.

And I’m going to kill you if you don’t edit your post to reflect this.

[Weeks]

Wait, I think I confused the law with law enforcement. My bad.