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.

Comments

Remember:

[GmExtremacy]

You have the right to not be offended. Right?

Re:Remember:

[cpu6502]

>>>You have the right to not be offended. Right?

F.U.

(I am referring of course to the new Fiscal Union of europe.) The summary almost makes the law sound reasonable, but I prefer infowars' spin on it:

Internet Censorship Bill Goes After Free Speech In Arizona The state legislature of Arizona has passed a bill that vastly broadens telephone harassment laws and applies them to the Internet and other means of electronic communication.

LINK - http://www.infowars.com/internet-censorship-bill-goes-after-free-speech-in-arizona/

Another interesting story from the same site: "TSA Screener Throws Hot Coffee In Face Of Pilot Who Asked Her To Stop Cursing" :-o Wow.

Freedom of Press - As Long As We Approve

[RevSpaminator]

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.

Hm...

[JustAnotherIdiot]

'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?

Re:Hm...

[berashith]

I once tried this on an HR droid. I was being forced through orientation of a large company as my smaller company had been purchased. The new policy was that all instances of harrasment and intimidation would be investigated, and that there was no standard of expected behavior. Any behavior that offended someone was based on teh one being offended, and therefore anything could be reported to HR, and therefore anyone could be investigated, for ANYTHING that someone chose to be offended by. I immediately stated that I was offended by such a policy, and that I would like to report HR to HR to open an investigation. The poor guy about popped. After attempting to just ignore me , thinking I was just being an ass, I did explain that I felt that the open ended policy was a threat to me, and that I was intimidated in my workplace as I was never certain what was an appropriate way to act or interact with my coworkers. They decided to take the verbiage to legal, and I quit soon afterwards as management that is this clueless will never change.

Re:Even worse

[TFAFalcon]

But the law seems to imply that annoying is fine, as long as you don't '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 it's not so much a law against trolling, as it is against impolite trolling.

If that is the case then I fully support it. It's so much more satisfying to drive a person crazy while being completely polite.

Fuck that

[Sarten-X]

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?

Re:well....

[rickb928]

"Mexican American studies "

Could also be accurately decribed as the

"Mexicans should hate Americans studies "

Just sayin.