Dear Arizona. Seriously?

[MatParker116]

http://techland.time.com/2012/04/03/ari ... -trolling/

Arizona is trying ban calling someone an idiot on a forum according to this bill:

It is 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.

How do these idiots get to be in charge of anything?

[The_Doctor]

Because those in government who lack the requisit skills to use a keyboard, want to punish us for mocking them. It's too much effort just to have their secretary troll us instead.

[Elomin Sha]

How can a building take exception to having a lewd act taken upon it? They better keep their back doors shut.

[Lyinginbedmon]

I think this is probably more directed towards legitimate harassment more than "you are such an idiot", such as bullying by text and such.

That said, perhaps needs better wording.

[theDreamer]

I think "annoy, or offend" might be a little too big brother.

Posting with intent to "terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass" seems like a reasonable thing to not do.

[empath]

...the very wording of this bill "annoy"s me; who do I take my grievance to?


The intent of the bill is commendable - in light of the media attention on bullying, this is a step to try to punish those who plaster someone's Facebook wall with intimidation and threats, as those who do so with snail mail and Ma Bell.

...but as always, the old dinosaurs are casting far too broad a net (sorry), and there's the danger of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water'.

Is it too late to get gcninja to talk to his State Representative and see about revising the wording of the bill to close the dangerous 'slippery slope' loopholes?

[plummeting_sloth]

It's already being fixed. It may get reworked, but I think even many of the legislators realized how dangerously vague and stupidly open-ended this was.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120406/03264218403/arizona-politicians-scramble-to-adjust-internet-censorship-bill-after-internet-mocks-them-being-clueless.shtml

[Lyinginbedmon]

Wait wait, if I find the campaign site of a particularly idiotic politician irritating, can I have it taken down?

What about pamphlets from a Jehovah's Witness?

[Bacon]

They would have just been opening the floodgates of pointless legal cases that would clog up their legal system. It's a shame they are changing it because there may have been some highly comical stories about Arizonas battle with Youtube comment-monkeys. Although any game developer there could have a bounty put out on Yahtzee's hat so it is a win-lose situation.

[gcninja]

They would have just been opening the floodgates of pointless legal cases that would clog up their legal system. .

This so much. It's the next "Scalding Mcdonalds Coffee" lawsuits...
also, I don't want to live in this state anymore..

[Smeghead]

I read an article about this a few days ago (probably before it was getting reworked). But the article also mentioned Tv or Radio being included, imagine how that could have been used against stereotypical "angry radio hosts" (which was mentioned in the article regarding the radio host who called a woman campaning for birth-controll being included in the healthcare, a slut over the air). Imagine how this law could have been used against Bill O'rielly or FOX in general.

But that is still not worth it. A law like this would open pandoras box, and would cause way more harm then it is trying to prevent.

[leapy]

I read an article about this a few days ago (probably before it was getting reworked). But the article also mentioned Tv or Radio being included, imagine how that could have been used against stereotypical "angry radio hosts" (which was mentioned in the article regarding the radio host who called a woman campaning for birth-controll being included in the healthcare, a slut over the air). Imagine how this law could have been used against Bill O'rielly or FOX in general.

The thought of Rush Limbaugh being hit with a maelstrom of lawsuits for being .... well, HIM fills me with a warm joy I haven't felt since my last dram of whisky (about 6 months ago, since I mention it)

[Smeghead]

http://gma.yahoo.com/annoying-offending-language-online-crime-under-arizona-bill-171544046--abc-news-topstories.html

Even in talk radio, saying 'I know this will offend my listeners' is a common practice. It's a tradition, speech that challenges the status quo," he said.

Horowitz said everything from Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" on his radio show to Sen. Al Franken's book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" could be viewed as criminal acts if the bill becomes a law.

now this was 4 days ago, so I don't know how current it is on this story.

Here is my question since I'm not all up on the US legal system.
If this law or a variation of it comes into practice in Arizona; what effect would that have in the rest of the country? or if someone commits one of these crimes against someone in Arizona, but are themselves living in another state that doesn't have the law?

[The_Doctor]

Pretty sure this would violate your constitution, or could at least be challenged on those grounds.

[empath]

Yeah, that's what I was gonna say:

"The combined law firms of every state of the Union admit that we are uncertain of the legality, constitutionality and viability of this state-level bill, but we're more than willing to put forth hundreds and hundreds of billable hours to find out for you!"