Slashdot Mirror
Arizona Attempts To Make Trolling Illegal
LordofEntropy writes "Though unlikely to pass any First Amendment test. Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer has a bill on her desk that would in essence make 'trolling' illegal. The law states '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.'"
This did indeed manage to pass through both houses of legislature and only needs a signature to become law.
Jail this!
[ this comment has been removed by the State of Arizona ]
BREAKING--Trolls Left Homeless After Website Ruled Illegal
Tech site Slashdot was ruled illegal today, leaving hundreds of trolls without a home. Slashdot, founded in the late 90s by master troll Rob Malda, has provided shelter for countless trolls over the years.
"It leaves me feeling naked. And petrified," said Slashdot user PortmanHotGrits. "Slashdot was once a thriving troll community due to its rigid ideology, biased editors, and broken moderation system."
"Where am I going to hate Apple now?" asked one anonymous user. "I hate Reddit, and my real life friends bought Macs years ago. Slashdot was the last place my puppet accounts could go to vent their frustration at iSheep Crapple fans. Android4Lyfe! Hang on, my custom ROM just crashed."
Reaction in other internet communities was mixed.
"Slashdot is still around?" asked several Twitter users. Said one IT administrator: "Whoa, Slashdot? I used to post there when I ran Linux on my desktop back in 2001. I used to write 'Micro$oft' non-ironically. I was an embarrassing idiot. Farewell, Slashdot."
Rob Malda, who ran screaming from Slashdot earlier in the year with half his body engulfed in flames, could not be reached for comment.
I'm glad I moved to Texas.
The only actual story here is that the government and voters of Arizona are profoundly stupid.
Typo, please correct.
This law offends and annoys me.
Lock them up!
Really?
"This did indeed management to pass through both houses of legislature and only needs a signature to become law."
You have the right to not be offended. Right?
It's not just trolling "annoy or offend" could literally be applied to every word ever written.
They also outlawed teaching Mexican American studies in public schools, so no I don't find this surprising.
this news rather obscene, terrifying, intimidating and annoying. It's pure harassment.
If trolling will become illegal, how will politicians get their messages across any more?
It's bad enough taking existing patents and adding "ON THE INTERNET", without doing it to existing laws as well.
Great work on crapping all over free speech Arizona.
Arizona proposes another batshit law.
The rest of the country is unsurprised.
The existence of the Arizona legislature annoys me.
You can kinda tell something about the submitter when you see the typo "management" instead of "manage". This lets you know that the submitter types "management" a lot. Probably a working class Joe.
oh, wait...
That is on the front page of your website. Everyone should be fired, immediately, and replaced with people who know how to write English.
You're advocating exporting Slashdot's jobs outside of the U.S.?
And a lot else besides. Really, illegal to annoy someone? Really?!
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
How's that going to work for Fox News?
So...if you make inflammatory comments against fraudsters, does that mean you're...(wait for it)
Trolling for phishers? Would that now be considered poaching?
Any troll worth his salt need not "use ... 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".
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Isn't this already covered under stalking? Or does this law makes it illegal to say anything bad about anyone even on a public channel?
Old news.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
In what bizarre interpretation of the US Constitution would this be allowed? Oh wait, I get it, that only protects written works that were published by a device identified as a "press". Since the internet is NOT a press, what you write on the internet is not considered protected. Civil liberties are no longer a right of being human, they are now a technicality that must be navigated around.
you ain't kidding, have you seen them drive? fuck me in the goat ass!
and look at the racist assholes who run education out there
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/apr/03/arizona-considers-expanded-ban-daily-show-lampoons/
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
'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.
So, technically, couldn't it be viewed that this law is breaking itself?
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Or at least that's what grandma said.
Judging from the comments, this law is a trolling attempt in itself and should be banned.
Score: -1, Unconstitutional
Sincerely yours, SCOTUS.
Any politician who having swarn an oath to protect and defend the constitution then knowingly and willfully proceeds to act to contravene the constitution will be jailed for the remainder of their term and barred from ever holding an elected office for the remainder of their sorry existance.
... Haters gonna hate!
Hey Arizona, welcome to the internet. I have some delicious cake for you. Just walk through this door.
So how effective will they likely be at extraditing the other 99.9999% of the world to Arizona for prosecution?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Hence illegal.
I hate electronics, and I'm going to tell the world that it annoys me when they use them. Therefore every is intentionally
trolling me online constantly. Arrest everyone.
In a related story, Today the Arizona state legislature made Gays, Democrats, Liberals, Mexicans, Muslims, gay mixed drinks with fruit and umbrellas, small dogs, men's skin care products, evolution, gun control advocates, subcompact foreign cars, lite beer, pansies, petunias and 6 other flowers that begin with the letter 'P' illegal. When asked, leaders of the legislature said "Yeah, we know its unconstitutional, but tomorrow we're making the Constitution illegal."
It looks like they're saying that it's only illegal if you intend to offend, irritate, annoy, etc... So it looks like I'd have to prove that you're lying when you say that you didn't mean any offense by calling my Mama fat.
Sounds like one of those laws that nobody even tries to enforce.
I think if you get rid of the "annoy or offend," it seems fine. Pretty sure there are already laws that prohibit communicating with "intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass" via non-electronic means.
The "annoy or offend" bit seems right out, though.
Oh man. I remember when myg0t clan posted this as an April Fool's joke some 10 years ago. Jeez.
As long as it doesn't effect corporate profits, it's constitutional!
Legislating morality, with nice vague language; that'll end well.
But on a slightly more serious note, has anyone read the actual bill? I'd do it myself, but I'm currently experiencing some mild Benadryl withdrawal (topical cream, had some chapped lips, couldn't find anything else to put on them last night), and it's making my life slightly more challenging than usual.
I am John Hurt.
I am strongly in favor of limiting free speech, and opposed to "rampant profanity", but I have my limits. Clearly, the law is intended to stop online bullying and harassment, but the broad ruling leaves a ridiculous amount of power in the hands of any public individual. It reminds me of those "it's not what you intended, but how they felt" lines from every sexual harassment seminar.
Without further ado, I must speak what's really on my mind, as intended for this law's authors and supporters.. Fuck this shitty law, and everything about it. Does it offend your short-sighted sensibilities that someone's fucking language could be used for some fucking emphasis? If you want to curb offensive abuses of free speech, then use your brain and figure out a legal wording that doesn't also cover anything poorly-worded. You've reached a point where, in your cowardly mind, you cannot empathize with someone else's point of view, that might lead them to say the things they say? Must you censor them, not by attacking their methods, but by attacking their very words?
If this obsession with political correctness continues, we, as a society, are fucked. In my ideal world, intent to cause harm would be illegal, but accidental harm is repaired and forgiven. Why the fuck can't we work toward that?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Problem?
Would all of the low-life supporters of Obama and his communist minions please go back to your worthless countries. This is America. We have a constitution that we hold dear in our hearts. We are not European trash that has to have a law to govern rule over every action.
Oh wait, speaking one's mind is trolling. God help us. Save us from these mindless twits. Perhaps a nuclear bomb or two would be good. Take out a few million under-educated tweeners.
I am not sure about the exact text of this or the general interpretation of it but when someone intends to cause physiological distress then normally it is illegal.
Say whatever you what, but if the sole reason you are speaking is to cause harm to another then most people would consider that worthy of being illegal.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I live here, I am sorry. So what can be done about this from the local persepctive. This crosses a major line for me personally.
it's actually the law itself if posted anywhere online is used to terrify, intimidate, threaten, if you get prosecuted thats a form of harrasement
Don't give them the benefit of the doubt, implying that the people controlling government are simply ignorant or insane. They know damn well what they are trying to do: expand the business of government, making it more lucrative for the elite few who can exploit the business of government for personal gain.
The correct term is oppression. This is not ignorance. This is not insanity. This is oppression, and it is quite deliberate and carefully planned.
of hoohah on Slashtard - this 'law' would never stand up in court, so all the Nancy boys here are getting their panties in a twist...
I don't understand why this should be surprising. I only had to scroll back two days for these two stories. What makes anyone think the First Amendment is any more important than the Fourth? Face it, folks, the Constitution has taken a back seat to Child Porn, then Terrorism and now............"Cyber-Bullying".
This space intentionally left blank.
WT[censored]?
Well, I'm annoyed AND offended by the proposal, in particular this portion "annoy or offend, [...] and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act".
As for this part, "threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person", I would have thought that's already illegal. Nothing new about digital communications.
I assume this bill is on the AZ legislature's website which is an electronic medium.
I find this type of assault on the first amendment blatantly obscene. And I am very offended.
Voting to pass this makes it the voice of everyone that voted Yes on it. Let the first round of class 1 misdemeanors begin.
Why isn't it enough to have the existing laws, and just apply them to electronic media?
Legislation in the EU tries to avoid introducing new laws and makes laws medium-neutral. Basically all communication-laws have been reused for jurisdiction on the Internet.
Well, the EU still manages to produce a frightening volume of new laws every year (i.e. measurable in cubic meters).
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
I'm sorry if you were upset but that was not my intention.
I find being offended by me offensive.
This is probably going to go against popular opinion, but having read the bill, it looks ok with one exception: "annoy or offend". Remove those two (ok, three counting "or") words and what you have is a bill that says "It's illegal to threaten someone via the telephone so it should be illegal to do so online as well." Remember, freedom of speech isn't freedom to threaten someone with bodily harm or to stalk someone.
With "annoy/offend" intact, though, the law could be read in much too broad of a manner and could easily infringe on someone's free speech rights.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The real trolls here are the people from the legislature! Just ignore them and the crappy law they redacted *on purpose*. Otherwise, they win.
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
How do they deduce intent?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
I wonder how long it will take Anonymous to react to...oh nevermind.
http://rt.com/usa/news/arizona-butthurt-form-internet-158/
I invented a perpetual motion machine!
Get arrested for posting a nude picture of yourself. Then that law approved by the Supreme Court that demands a strip search for any arrest kicks in!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
This law is getting a lot of attention because it's not a new law, it's an update to the existing law. Currently the law is in reference to telephones but is being updated to any electronic device. It's getting a lot of heat from local conservative talk radio. It's not actually on Jan Brewer's desk yet and she had no part in updating it. My guess is that from all the attention it has gotten that it will not pass. Take away the annoy and offend and it might pass. These are essentially anti-stalker laws. Since there is no legal definition for annoy and offend then it is loosely interpreted.
I propose it be illegal to maim, kill, torture, rape, smile at, incinerate, smash or dismember a baby.
If it passes, I'l happy if only these lawmakers and their respective web-pages and related Arizona government websites were trolled to hell in a great collaborative effort of civil-disobedience.
That's exactly what this does: amend an existing law about telephone harrassment and stalking and make it applicable to any "electronic or digital device."
I don't know when these two states decided to battle for the dumbest state government, but it is sure entertaining to watch.
The solution's simple: if someone threatens you in a manner that is even slightly credible, you get a free pass to shoot and kill them. That way the state doesn't have to involve itself, or pay for the bullet or the lawyer.
...what, you think I'm joking, even a little?
Yes, the Arizona law is way too broad. But watching people here try to defend a "right" to lie about someone and threaten them, and target people for harassment... yeah, I see why the "there oughta be a law" crowd has support that's widespread enough to get the Arizona bill passed. Online stalkers need to start paying dearly for their behavior, and if the state doesn't exact that payment, "street justice" will do.
Vigilantism arises when the state fails in its duty.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
I knew this extremely large trollface would come to represent something important, someday!
Here in AZ, if the bill is not signed within 10 days, then it automatically becomes law.
"The LORD will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, scurvy, and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. The LORD will strike you with madness, blindness, and panic. You will grope around in broad daylight, just like a blind person groping in the darkness, and you will not succeed at anything you do. You will be oppressed and robbed continually, and no one will come to save you. (Deuteronomy 28:20-29 NLT)
How is this going to get overturned, if it was passed by duly elected legislature? By unelected judges? I thought a recently as 3 days ago, that was an outrageous activist overreach?
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.
So this law doesn't criminalize everything that might offend someone. It criminalizes certain behavior when the primary motivation is to threaten, harass, intimidate, terrify, annoy or offend someone.
The courts in USA have already ruled that your right to free speech doesn't extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater just for the lulz... this is just clarifying that it's true even if you're online.
This doesn't mean that I support the law. Listing "annoy" as one of the words motivations is just asking for trouble (I would be fine with this if there were just "harass, threaten" and perhaps a couple other words) and we also get to very muddy waters when you can no longer suggest "lascivious or lewd" stuff... So there are plenty of reasons to oppose this law. The one you (and many others) have pointed out- that no matter what you write, someone might be offended - isn't one though.
So the laws intention is really to prevent bullying.
Freedom of speech certainly protects me from saying something bad about the president, but it does not protect me from threatening him.
The language is always tricky, but I feel like a law could be passed that stated that posting a comment was the equivalent to going to park and talking it aloud. I don't see why electronics matter.
If I went into a school, broke into the intercom, and started saying untrue things about a student...potentially harmful things would I not get in trouble with the law.
Is it really all that different to go on Facebook and do it? Perhaps worse?
But why can it not be independent of the device? Why do we need a new law if we communicate through neutrinos and not electrons anymore?
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
"You're doin' one heck of a job there, Brewie."
One can only surmise that toxic tailings from Arizona's open-pit copper mines have leached into their public water supply, subtly influencing their legislature. For a moment, I thought I was reading of a fatally-flawed decision willingly undertaken despite near-universal ridicule, but that's just crazy talk. Mine tailings, definitely. O.o
Can't stop the Beta? Time to evacuate to ##altslashdot at webchat.freenode.net - Slashcott in effect.
Wow.
"This did indeed management to pass."
That is on the front page of your website. Everyone should be fired, immediately, and replaced with people who know how to write English.
We apologise again for the fault in the titles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
This sounds like it includes pornography. Kudos
vi is better than EMACS
Gnome sucks. Real Linux users use KDE.
The BSD license is completely deficient compared to the GPL.
and (my favourite):
This law is perfectly balanced and meets the need of all Internet users.
Can now get the strip search they sometimes deserve once arrested.
Arizona annoys me.
I'd like to suggest that Gov. Jan Brewster takes that bill and commits a lewd or lascivious act with it. Preferably one which inflicts physical harm to the people who signed it.
I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
Setting the bar lower for the other 49 states since 1912.
So I guess if I was in Arizona, then my blog Rick Barnes Sucks would potentially cause me legal issues. Hmmm.. I didn't know I was a troll. I can add that credential to my title now.
...
This is bound to happen more often as laws tend to cover already necessary, this is another example of legislation for the sake of legislation.
They just can't stop making laws, they have to justify the need for more cause that's what democratic parliament is about. I'm not saying parliaments are a failure, but there should be a point after which we should look at body of laws and see it as a somewhat final, and try to go on without making more laws for while.
I'd like to see a parliament where they try to not create (and subsequently mess up) the laws each year, maybe there should be like a year off and then year of legislation and so on.
My dog barks sometimes ....
He sent me a smiley face while I was feeling sad and that annoyed me. I want him in jail!
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to... annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device ..."
I have a blog where I definitely intend to greatly annoy and offend certain self-deluded people by politely posting the truth that they want to deny and avoid.
Under this law, my polite posting of only the truth would be illegal and those I intentionally annoy and offend would certainly try to use this law to shut down such a blog.
Is any Arizona politician capable of any logical thought at all?
It was never on "We has done" Brewer's desk. People need to check facts before going into convulsions and spewing ignorance.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/04/internet_trolls_can_breathe_ea.php
I have one question for all the supporters of this bill... http://pawsru.org/m/src/m54619_why-you-mad-brah.jpg
As long as you can think of a complaint that you believe is worth more than twenty dollars, you, too, can sue anyone about anything. Please tell me what the Democrats have to do with that.
And of course, right-leaning god-fearing folk have never been known to engage in divisive identity politics.
I guess Brewer is tired of people, including those in her own State, annoying her with logic and facts.
I am so tired of the stupid shit that the legislature and the governor of Arizona keep pulling.
If this passes, does continually reporting the governors' harassing, intimidating, annoying and offensive retoric count?
If you parse the ridiculously long sentence in the summary, what Arizona is trying to outlaw is using obscene language, suggest lewd acts, or threaten violence. The "intent to annoy" thing is a necessary condition for the post to be in violation of this law. So if I say "the Arizona legislature can go fuck themselves. I want to beat them all with a golf club," the state still has to prove I did it with intent to 'terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend" and if they can't then my obscene, suggestive, violent language was OK.
I'm not defending the law. I hate it. I'm only saying that sounding off on a misinterpretation of its text, based on the word "annoy," fails to grasp the intent of the law.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
This would completely stop DMCA takedown notices in their tracks, as their intent is to clearly harass, threaten and intimidate. It would require the MPAA to write notices longhand, or on a electro-mechanical typewriter and snail-mail them to the supposed copyright violators.
Electing 'leaders' like this? This bitch is worse than Sarah Palin. Yeah we all hate trolls. Is she just trying to get headlines or votes from the weak minded? Like a political Paris Hilton? I don't care if this type of law can't pass constitutional muster; the fact that she's even introducing it shows nothing but contempt for the constitution. What's up with Republicans and their phony patriotism when the only thing they work hard at is getting campaign contributions from private industry and eroding personal freedom. I'm serious...these fuckers are actually Orwellian at this point. All talk of personal freedom, then introducing this kind of trash legislation. The democrats are almost as bad. Why did the occupy movement fail? I was really hoping that would turn into some kind of hardcore revolution and kick both their asses out. This story really pisses me off. Enough is enough for Christ's sake.
If I could interrupt what passes for discussion in Slashdot,
I heard this on the radio on the way into work this morning: That due to public outcry, the bill's authors realize they screwed the pooch on this one (deliberately being offensive...) and have quietly asked the governor not to sign it.
There may be another bill later, but it may be slightly less insane.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled panic.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
For people who claim to be opposed to Big Government. pro-freedom, and pro-Constitution, the current crop of elected Republicans (even Tea Party approved ones) appear to be more than happy to expand governmental powers to reduce freedoms and violate Constitutional rights.
They can go fuck themselves!
One thing I've noticed about people on the left is they almost to a man have some irrational but deep seated belief that anyone who doesn't agree with them is from another planet or something, and seem to take great offense if you disagree with them. For anyone reading; I think both sides are their collective rockers, ok? You're both friggin' nutso.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXk9EPxZw48.
So advertising will be illegal in Arizona?
And if that's not what they mean, I'm sure I can find a legal team to construe this language that way. Couch it in terms of advertising medical marijuana, or immigrant aid, or something, and bye-bye Madison Avenue!
SIGN ME UP!!!
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
Appears as though legislators in AZ have finally discovered the internet.
In the late '80's, when I lived in Tucson, the state legislature passed a law banning "obscene" bumper stickers.
Their comprehension of the Constitution still needs some work.
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
The fact that people can. The other thing that's great about it is you actually get to see what some people are really thinking. Sometimes the AC posts on here are amusing, even if they are completely obscene. It's like seeing what a person really does all alone on that business trip or alone in private thoughts. Banning trolling isn't just immoral, it's stupid and probably removes the one tiny peek hole into people's real thoughts. The guy who got on and said nigger faggot in the second post.... Well, as a faggot, I don't really like it, if I were also a black person, I'm sure it's not exactly nice. But isn't it helpful to know that the work educating people isn't over? What if everyone is totally fascist (like at the office) and has to pretend all day and we get into a false sense of security about where people are in their heads? The only real barometer is allowing people anonymous thoughts. Lets you know that there are still racists, and homophobes, (so don't get too comfy at the office...you might just get tired yet). Sorry I'm rambling/being offensive, but we don't have many 'freedoms' left as it is. From now on, I plan to appreciate that troll.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-freedom-of-speech-in-obsceni,17372/
There are always exceptions.
A person who has to say lewd or offensive language that threatens or suggest lewd or offensive acts as part of their job are probably exempt. A policeman using an interphone to say, "if you don't open the door we will break it down." is offensive towards someones property, but they are likely to be exempt.
A Radio DJ saying, "we are smashing down houses here on 98.1 FM" into a microphone might just get prosecuted!
And for the rest of us, if we tell blond jokes online, we'll get prosecuted.
Could we just get to work on our new internet now?
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
Granted that English isn't my first language but it really seems to be "It is unlawful for any person with intent to (LIST OF INTENTS), to (LIST OF THINGS YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO WITH THE SAID INTENT)".
Note that they're just amending this by essentially search-and-replacing "phonecall" with "communication".
If we read it like you suggest, that old law has already meant that using profane words in a phone call has been illegal for ages... which I find extremely unlikely if that hasn't been challenged in a court.
Here is another example of the dig your heels in, no compromise strategy the the Newt stated back with the Contract on America days. Here you have legislators that do not care about the Constitution or our system of government, or idea's like settled law. No they want to turn back the clock to those times when Arizona was the Wild West and land barrens and robbers ruled, and if you were quicker with a gun you were right and no one questioned you, and woman could not vote (or have a say). They have defined marriage, and now they want to define free speech as speech you could say to your pastor in a real Christian church. Well the country learned a lesson with prohibition, and the Koch brothers are leaning a lesson in Wisconsin as the governor's recall election starts in full swing. That even though they can market and focus group and wedge issue their way into positions of lawmaking power. Ultimately it is we the voters that will have to clean up their mess. We used to have a Supreme Court we could count on to keep these crazies in check but that sadly does not seem to be the case today.
What ever else you do in life, vote!
I have just caught the Arizona GOP in one large hypocrisy. Arizona, being a state dominated by the Republican Party, should espouse smaller government and more individual freedoms. It looks like the wolf in sheep's clothing just got unmasked. The GOP is NOT about more individual freedoms as this bill is designed to significantly curtail freedom to the point of being fascist. I have very grave and serious concerns as to whether or not the GOP really cares about individual freedoms or are looking to further protect their corporate interests. If Sheriff Joe is any representation of this, then we are in dire straits. Oh, and it ain't signed into law yet so I am free and clear!
lol she mad bro?
There are a lot of Libertarians in Arizona. This can help motivate them to come HOME, to where they're actually wanted!
Part of the Second American Revolution!
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
That isn't a perpetual motion machine. What you have invented is the perpetual stupidity machine which does not violate the laws of thermodynamics as it always increases entropy of the universe with each cycle.
Time to offend someone
Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
...due to public outcry, the bill's authors realize they screwed the pooch on this one (deliberately being offensive...) and have quietly asked the governor not to sign it.
There may be another bill later, but it may be slightly less publicized.
FTFY.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's a troll law, gets headlines, gets votes, gets thrown out as unconstitutional but that's not the politicians fault, it's those wussy legislative types.
That due to public outcry, the bill's authors realize they screwed the pooch on this one (deliberately being offensive...) and have quietly asked the governor not to sign it."
Probably because the authors eventually took the time to read it.
(did I say that out loud?)
You know you're getting old when you didn't realise that "to troll" now means "to deliberately be real nasty to somebody or a group because you think its funny".
I still thought it meant "to deliberately appear obtuse in a discussion and draw a conflict into discussion of grammer and spelling"
For those of you curious about the bill you can find it here.
The sponsors where:
VOGT
WILLIAMS
CAMPBELL
FANN
FARLEY
GOWAN
PROUD
SMITH D
TOVAR
Also you can find the vote record here and here, but it looks like it was passed unanimously by one of the chambers with the other having only one no vote and one not voting.
Time to offend someone
I'm not sure that subby knows what "trolling" is.
The stuff described in the summary sounds more like cyber-bullying to me.
No sig today...
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/04/internet_trolls_can_breathe_ea.php
to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act...
That is a pretty subjective bit of language, so I suspect that someone will get charged with it and just appeal ad nauseaum, on the grounds that speaking their mind, however lewd and hateful, is a freedom of speech issue. I mean, otherwise KKK and neo-nazi groups would have been jailed and run out of the country decades ago, right? GG Arizona on creating yet more useless paperwork to tie up the courts with for the next twenty years.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Does this apply if the "offending" message is stored in Arizona, sent from Arizona, received in Arizona, or transits through Arizona?
If it accounts for narrow jurisdiction only, then the law would have very little reach.
If it claims a broad jurisdiction, then the law is clearly overstepping its bounds. Arizona does not own the internet and does not have jurisdiction over the various actual owners.
Trolling, as I understand it, is making stupid comments to create the opportunity for others to stupidly step in it. It isn't about annoying or harassing, so much as it is about giving people enough rope to make themselves look like an idiot.
Now, trolling is bad. And annoying and harassing are bad. And overreaching laws are bad.
But this one isn't about trolling -- it's about annoying and harassing.
...due to public outcry, the bill's authors realize they screwed the pooch on this one (deliberately being offensive...) and have quietly asked the governor not to sign it.
There may be another bill later, but it may be slightly less publicized.
FTFY.
Good point. To which I respond, not if we can help it.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
This is not true. The bill never made it to the governor's desk. It was amended by the Senate and is back in the House.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/04/internet_trolls_can_breathe_ea.php
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Well, this is a fun, albeit pointless, game.
Irrational people who believe they hold the One And Only Truth and aren't willing to listen to other people come in all stripes. People tend to think that what they believe is True and Self Evident, and everyone else is Just Plain Wrong.
The problem, is some things become so axiomatic to your belief system that you really are incapable of seriously questioning it, and your defense of it boils down to "How can you not see the obvious?". That applies to right, left, wrong, and undecided.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
let's see: 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 can troll, for instance, by advocating Ruby in a Perl newsgroup, without any threats, profane language, etc.
Troll messages are often subtle, even seemingly sincere.
[citation needed]
What would the politicians do then? Write laws that fix real problems??
AIUI, Gov. Brewer has to do more than just "not sign", else it will become law automatically after a certain number of days without a signature. I believe at this point, she'd have to veto it. Could someone clarify Arizona law in this area?
- T
[citation needed]
That's fair.
Read here
Also note that the bill never made it to the governor's desk, despite earlier reports to the contrary.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I lived in Arizona for awhile, but I confess I don't know if the governor can "pocket veto" a bill or not. In any case, in this instance the bill appears to have been amended in the senate and then sent back to the house to die quietly. See link earlier in this thread.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Natalie Portman is forbidden from pouring hot grits down your pants.
I'm offended by this law!
But what about goatse.cx or the Wet bikini girls site?
Only one thing to say: What the Fuck!
http://www.trollkingdom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44354
http://slashdot.org/~klerck
RIP, Truly an American icon.
Not to be pedantic: The State of Arizona had little to do with one school district canceling Mexican-American studies. That was a course taught at a few schools in Tucson, and the school district shut it down. There are reasonable arguments both ways on that call.
Huh? You are completely wrong. Maybe you are trolling and this is meant to be "meta", but here are the actual facts.
It was a popular Tucson program that was ruined by Republican state lawmakers from outside Tucson. There was a state law passed that specifically targeted Mexican-American studies at TUSD. You can read more here. There were 1400 kids in Mexican American studies in Tucson before the state started targeting it. The state threatened to withhold 10% of TUSD's budget - millions of dollars for a cash-strapped school district - unless they cancelled Mexican American studies. TUSD appealed the decision and lost a court case, and only then voted to end the program.
An audit the state commissioned found that the program was successful and not illegal, but the Republicans ignored their own audit and insisted the program was illegal.
Fits right in with the Tennessee law banning images that might offend. http://www.tgdaily.com/opinion/56556-tenn-bans-posting-images-that-cause-emotional-distress
Have we forgotten that one already?
There's nothing about this law that isn't already on the books other than "via electronic device."
Laws against intimidation, harassment, defamation, stalking, and obscenity are all well supported under the First Amendment and area already on the books in most jurisdictions. The First Amendment protection for free speech isn't carte blanche to make someone else's life miserable on a whim.
So, technically, couldn't it be viewed that this law is breaking itself?
How? It lacks on at least two of three elements.
1) There's no proof of intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend. (That your sensibilities might be offended or that you might be annoyed by it is at best negligent and not intentional.
2) This is being done in the legislature. It's probable that an electronic or digital device was used in some part of the process but not 100% certain.
3) No obscene, lewd, or profane language is present. No suggestion of a lewd or lascivious act is present. And there's no threat of physical harm to person or property. (Note: Legally, the threat to fine or incarcerate after receiving proper due process does not count as the last element.)
Aside: The only part of this law that doesn't meet first amendment scrutiny is the intent to "annoy or offend." Everything else is generally within the powers of the states to regulate.
Aside 2: Does anyone else miss the days when Slashdot's CSS didn't bork up <ol> elements?
EITHER!!!
"Welcome to the 5th state of the United Kingdom"
Make it illegal. It will only make it more fun. Weed anyone?
I am now praying the Mayan calendar is right, just to end the rapidly accelerating insanity.
We appear to have run into a difference of definition. So what's a better term that means "descendants of people born on land that now belongs to the United States of America before the European colonization thereof"?
Dear Arizona,
I consider this legislation to be a trolling attempt
and clearly an invitation for a flame war against
trolling and trolls.
1. Flip light switch. (electronic & digital(on/off) device)
2. REAL troll gets "offended".
3. You go to jail.
Annoy? Really? It is chilling to be to contemplate a world in which I get to shut off people's rights to say the things that annoy me. I won't list them here, as that isn't terribly relevant, but let's just say, there are a ton of people that annoy me, though, mostly in the mass media of one form or another.
I think someone needs to be permanently banned from taking taxpayer money, ever again, for the rest of their life.
Huh. So saying "Screw you" or "Fuk off" to someone in arizona (if you're not in az) could get you extradited to, charged, sentenced and imprisoned in AZ? Wow!
Most people consider me a "troll" because I usually have a different opinion from everyone else. Sites like deviantART are fool of trolls. This law is gonna fail