User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 2261
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007
Sand$: 686.38
http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in ... 47052.html

Arizona bill could criminalize Internet trolling

Arizona marches to the beat of its own drummer. But if that drummer gets upset and starts hollering on the Internet, he might get tossed in the clink.

After spending years targeting illegal aliens, the Grand Canyon State is turning its sights on obnoxious Internet users (commonly called 'trolls'). A new update to the state's telecommunications harassment bill could make the practice of harassing people online illegal.
Arizona House Bill 2549 has already passed both of the state's legislative bodies and is currently sitting on the desk of Governor Jan Brewer. While there's a lot in there that doesn't concern trolling, here's the line that has people worried:

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.

Violators could be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor and face up to 6 months in jail. If electronic devices are used to stalk someone, the charges then become a Class 3 felony, with penalties ranging from a minimum sentence of two and a half years in jail for non-dangerous offenders with no prior record to 25 years.

At the heart of the bill is an anti-bullying agenda. Cyber-bullying has been on the rise in recent years and has been in the news lately. A 2010 report in The New York Times found that one of out five middle-school students said they had been victims of cyberbullying.

Despite its good intentions, the Arizona law is already being called "overly broad" by critics. By using vague terms like "annoy" and "offend," it could easily encompass Internet forums or even comments like the ones found at the end of this story.

Free speech groups say they don't believe the law would ever stand up to court scrutiny if Gov. Brewer does, in fact, sign it. And many have pointed out the flaws in the bill to the governor herself.

"Government may criminalize speech that rises to the level of harassment and many states have laws that do so, but this legislation takes a law meant to address irritating phone calls and applies it to communication on web sites, blogs, listserves and other Internet communication," Media Coalition wrote in a letter last week.

Moderatorbaiter
Posts: 24491
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005
Sand$: 6,210.32
Mursenary wrote:http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/arizona-bill-could-criminalize-internet-trolling-184547052.html

Arizona bill could criminalize Internet trolling

Arizona marches to the beat of its own drummer. But if that drummer gets upset and starts hollering on the Internet, he might get tossed in the clink.

After spending years targeting illegal aliens, the Grand Canyon State is turning its sights on obnoxious Internet users (commonly called 'trolls'). A new update to the state's telecommunications harassment bill could make the practice of harassing people online illegal.
Arizona House Bill 2549 has already passed both of the state's legislative bodies and is currently sitting on the desk of Governor Jan Brewer. While there's a lot in there that doesn't concern trolling, here's the line that has people worried:

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.

Violators could be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor and face up to 6 months in jail. If electronic devices are used to stalk someone, the charges then become a Class 3 felony, with penalties ranging from a minimum sentence of two and a half years in jail for non-dangerous offenders with no prior record to 25 years.

At the heart of the bill is an anti-bullying agenda. Cyber-bullying has been on the rise in recent years and has been in the news lately. A 2010 report in The New York Times found that one of out five middle-school students said they had been victims of cyberbullying.

Despite its good intentions, the Arizona law is already being called "overly broad" by critics. By using vague terms like "annoy" and "offend," it could easily encompass Internet forums or even comments like the ones found at the end of this story.

Free speech groups say they don't believe the law would ever stand up to court scrutiny if Gov. Brewer does, in fact, sign it. And many have pointed out the flaws in the bill to the governor herself.

"Government may criminalize speech that rises to the level of harassment and many states have laws that do so, but this legislation takes a law meant to address irritating phone calls and applies it to communication on web sites, blogs, listserves and other Internet communication," Media Coalition wrote in a letter last week.



Oh heck no. If this spreads, it could shut down the General Talk forum.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 16723
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009
Sand$: 36,888.32
StoneCutter wrote:
Mursenary wrote:http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/arizona-bill-could-criminalize-internet-trolling-184547052.html

Arizona bill could criminalize Internet trolling

Arizona marches to the beat of its own drummer. But if that drummer gets upset and starts hollering on the Internet, he might get tossed in the clink.

After spending years targeting illegal aliens, the Grand Canyon State is turning its sights on obnoxious Internet users (commonly called 'trolls'). A new update to the state's telecommunications harassment bill could make the practice of harassing people online illegal.
Arizona House Bill 2549 has already passed both of the state's legislative bodies and is currently sitting on the desk of Governor Jan Brewer. While there's a lot in there that doesn't concern trolling, here's the line that has people worried:

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.

Violators could be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor and face up to 6 months in jail. If electronic devices are used to stalk someone, the charges then become a Class 3 felony, with penalties ranging from a minimum sentence of two and a half years in jail for non-dangerous offenders with no prior record to 25 years.

At the heart of the bill is an anti-bullying agenda. Cyber-bullying has been on the rise in recent years and has been in the news lately. A 2010 report in The New York Times found that one of out five middle-school students said they had been victims of cyberbullying.

Despite its good intentions, the Arizona law is already being called "overly broad" by critics. By using vague terms like "annoy" and "offend," it could easily encompass Internet forums or even comments like the ones found at the end of this story.

Free speech groups say they don't believe the law would ever stand up to court scrutiny if Gov. Brewer does, in fact, sign it. And many have pointed out the flaws in the bill to the governor herself.

"Government may criminalize speech that rises to the level of harassment and many states have laws that do so, but this legislation takes a law meant to address irritating phone calls and applies it to communication on web sites, blogs, listserves and other Internet communication," Media Coalition wrote in a letter last week.



Oh heck no. If this spreads, it could shut down the General Talk forum.

Everyone on of us would be up on charges.

The Main Tank would become a shell of its former self.


So if something annoys me on TV does the actor and the writer get charged?
_______________________________________

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=336835
11th Annual Kicker Defense Challenge
Can you win a yahoo public league picking DEF/K in the 1st 2 rounds?

500 sand entry fee
2015 winners
Endzoneview
Craphead
Crackhead Bob
PMG
Palmerac
Moderatorbaiter
Posts: 24491
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005
Sand$: 6,210.32
625james wrote:
StoneCutter wrote:
Mursenary wrote:http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/arizona-bill-could-criminalize-internet-trolling-184547052.html

Arizona bill could criminalize Internet trolling

Arizona marches to the beat of its own drummer. But if that drummer gets upset and starts hollering on the Internet, he might get tossed in the clink.

After spending years targeting illegal aliens, the Grand Canyon State is turning its sights on obnoxious Internet users (commonly called 'trolls'). A new update to the state's telecommunications harassment bill could make the practice of harassing people online illegal.
Arizona House Bill 2549 has already passed both of the state's legislative bodies and is currently sitting on the desk of Governor Jan Brewer. While there's a lot in there that doesn't concern trolling, here's the line that has people worried:

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.

Violators could be charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor and face up to 6 months in jail. If electronic devices are used to stalk someone, the charges then become a Class 3 felony, with penalties ranging from a minimum sentence of two and a half years in jail for non-dangerous offenders with no prior record to 25 years.

At the heart of the bill is an anti-bullying agenda. Cyber-bullying has been on the rise in recent years and has been in the news lately. A 2010 report in The New York Times found that one of out five middle-school students said they had been victims of cyberbullying.

Despite its good intentions, the Arizona law is already being called "overly broad" by critics. By using vague terms like "annoy" and "offend," it could easily encompass Internet forums or even comments like the ones found at the end of this story.

Free speech groups say they don't believe the law would ever stand up to court scrutiny if Gov. Brewer does, in fact, sign it. And many have pointed out the flaws in the bill to the governor herself.

"Government may criminalize speech that rises to the level of harassment and many states have laws that do so, but this legislation takes a law meant to address irritating phone calls and applies it to communication on web sites, blogs, listserves and other Internet communication," Media Coalition wrote in a letter last week.



Oh heck no. If this spreads, it could shut down the General Talk forum.

Everyone on of us would be up on charges.

The Main Tank would become a shell of its former self.


So if something annoys me on TV does the actor and the writer get charged?


Oh good point. I wouldn't mind seeing every talking head on CNN/FoxNews/ABC/NBC/CBS get their turn with big bubba during their stay behind bars.



Seriously though, this has no chance of passing.
Moderatorbaiter
Posts: 24491
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005
Sand$: 6,210.32
Wow! I just noticed this already passed the Arizona legislature and is just awaiting signing by the governor.

:F How f'n stupid. Do these legislators even read this stuff before they vote on it? (Yes, I realize the irony of the question knowing that this does indeed happen.)
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 16723
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009
Sand$: 36,888.32
StoneCutter wrote:Wow! I just noticed this already passed the Arizona legislature and is just awaiting signing by the governor.

:F How f'n stupid. Do these legislators even read this stuff before they vote on it? (Yes, I realize the irony of the question knowing that this does indeed happen.)


Third and Long is in Arizona, will we get in trouble if we annoy him? What if he annoys another shark?






I hope I didn't just annoy him.






What if something I write doesn't annoy him at first, but then he reads it again after a couple of years and then gets annoyed :-k
_______________________________________

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=336835
11th Annual Kicker Defense Challenge
Can you win a yahoo public league picking DEF/K in the 1st 2 rounds?

500 sand entry fee
2015 winners
Endzoneview
Craphead
Crackhead Bob
PMG
Palmerac
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 2261
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007
Sand$: 686.38
625james wrote:Third and Long is in Arizona, will we get in trouble if we annoy him? What if he annoys another shark?

I hope I didn't just annoy him.

What if something I write doesn't annoy him at first, but then he reads it again after a couple of years and then gets annoyed :-k


No. I think we can annoy him all we want, he just can't annoy us. That's my understanding at least.
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 43863
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009
Sand$: 11,871.84
Some of the things they describe are already illegal. Their additions are unconstitutional. Illegal to annoy or offend? That's nice and vague.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 14877
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004
Sand$: 31,138.08
I just lawyered up in case something goes down.
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 43863
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009
Sand$: 11,871.84
SonOfDad wrote:I just lawyered up in case something goes down.


What are you implying? I'm offended!
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 15982
Joined: Tue Sep 6, 2005
Sand$: 12,711.83
i'm fkuced.
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 34779
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006
Sand$: 56,592.94
Nothing like pissing on the constitution. Be proud, Arizona!
User avatar
HammerHead Shark
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011
Sand$: 964.00
it was found unconstitutional to pull a person over to make sure they were legal, just because the color of their skin. but they still don't want any brown people in their state, this is their way of getting around the first law.
_______________________________________

elven wrote:i fully support name-calling and profanity in general.
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 33833
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005
Sand$: 27,503.24
The title of this thread is absolutely awesome, btw. :headbang:
_______________________________________

What about beans?
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 34779
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006
Sand$: 56,592.94
Alfman wrote:it was found unconstitutional to pull a person over to make sure they were legal, just because the color of their skin. but they still don't want any brown people in their state, this is their way of getting around the first law.

All they have are brown people in that state... :? Even the formerly white people are now brown.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest