Live in Arizona?

• Osayidan wrote on 2012-04-03 22:15
  Then you best stop trolling.
  This law isn't officially passed, but all it needs is to be signed (or at least that's what I read this morning on another source). The courts won't let it go if it's challenged but if it does get signed, it'll be in effect for that little while before the courts kill it.
  
  

  A new proposed law in Arizona is currently sitting on the desk of Gov. Jan Brewer awaiting signature. If signed, this could potentially have extensive ramifications, including a form of Internet censorship.
  Already signed by Arizona politicians, if passed into law, Arizona House Bill 2549, designed to combat activities such as bullying and stalking, could have a broader impact than initially envisioned by lawmakers.
  According to First Amendment rights group Media Coalition, Bill 2549 updates Arizona's telephone harassment law, seeking to include all electronic devices.
  Bill 2549 has been updated to read: “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.”
  "It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communications were received."
  The perceived problem is that the bill does not limit to one-to-one communications, and theoretically could apply to the whole Internet. This means any comment, forum post, blog post or other public web spaces where discussions or shared thoughts take place could be held accountable if deemed in violation of the law.
  If interpreted in a broader fashion, it could equate to squashing some of the basics of web philosophies, primarily freedom of expression. Media Coalition states the bill would criminalize "all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying."
  "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. H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people," Media Coalition wrote in a letter to Gov. Brewer.
  Media Coalition continues to point out the ambiguity in the law stating, "The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person."
  Not unlike other laws where often lawmakers intentions are good, but are shortsighted in looking at the bigger picture. Time's Techland points out its another "knee-jerk technology legislation."
  Many people are annoyed by trolls and/or disruptive comments made on any given platform residing on the web, and it's one thing if the owner of a website removes posts deemed written to incite, but it's another thing to send one to jail for it. If found guilty, depending on the level and whether or not deemed a misdemeanor or felony in Arizona, an offender could spend 6 months to 25 years in jail.

  
  http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/322349
• Ithiliel wrote on 2012-04-03 22:21
  Does this honestly surprise anyone that Arizona would do this? I'm not surprised, but maybe that's because I've lived here for 22 years.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-04-03 22:24
  Makes me wish I was still in contact with my Ex. She'd be pissed if she heard about this.
• Rin wrote on 2012-04-03 23:03
  It's to curb internet bullying, but I only think that really becomes a problem if said cyber bullies are also people you see in real life, constantly.
  
  When they're people you will never see once in your life, that's when anonymity comes into question.
• Sekwaf wrote on 2012-04-03 23:18
  Well, it's sound in theory, but there's no way to tell what the "intent" of the poster was, so anything that offends anybody could be charged, despite that not being in the spirit of the law.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-04-04 10:10

  25 years

  
  WHAT
  
  Up to 25 years for talking shit?
• Ithiliel wrote on 2012-04-04 10:24

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;830283:

  WHAT
  
  Up to 25 years for talking shit?

  
  
  lol...you've never been to Arizona have you? That doesn't surprise me in the least bit. Nothing dealing with politics and Arizona surprises me anymore, especially when a corrupt Sheriff keeps getting voted back in.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-04-04 11:05
  Never. It's always been one of those states that I've wanted to avoid. As much as I like peace and quiet, certain southern places just don't line up with the way I think of/do things very well.
• Ithiliel wrote on 2012-04-04 22:30

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;830305:

  Never. It's always been one of those states that I've wanted to avoid. As much as I like peace and quiet, certain southern places just don't line up with the way I think of/do things very well.

  
  
  I don't blame you. I have a lot of issues with Arizona myself, one of them being the corruptness of politicians and the sheriff's office here.
• Yoorah wrote on 2012-04-05 01:21
  As an update to this topic: Politicians are responding to criticism by making changes to the bill.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-04-05 01:48

  Quote from Yoorah;830987:

  As an update to this topic: Politicians are responding to criticism by making changes to the bill.

  
  That's good. I can actually kinda understand harassment laws for the internet. People who do terrible, intimidating, threatening things on the internet or through email shouldn't get off the hook when, if someone did the same thing through a call or a letter, they'd be jailed. However, the lower end of that (6 months) sounds a lot more reasonable...
  
  Of course I think there are better ways to go about things than throwing people in jail, but perhaps people who do especially terrible things online should be taken in and helped just like someone would if they did it over the phone. Right now, unless someone goes so far as to make a bomb threat, I'm betting the worst that would happen is their ISP would cut them off and they'd have to find a new one.
• TA wrote on 2012-04-05 07:18
  Honestly... am I the only one that thinks "internet bullying" is just retardation on part of the "victim" and could be easily avoided and shouldn't even be punished?
  
  It's not like you'd get arrested for talking shit to someone in person, so why the internet?
  
  And how hard is it to block someone from select sites, or simply avoid the sites? It blows my mind how people can actually be "bullied" when there are so many ways to prevent it. It's pure negligence on the "victim"'s part, if you ask me.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-04-05 07:24

  Quote from TA;831339:

  Honestly... am I the only one that thinks "internet bullying" is just retardation on part of the "victim" and could be easily avoided and shouldn't even be punished?
  
  It's not like you'd get arrested for talking shit to someone in person, so why the internet?
  
  And how hard is it to block someone from select sites, or simply avoid the sites? It blows my mind how people can actually be "bullied" when there are so many ways to prevent it. It's pure negligence on the "victim"'s part, if you ask me.

  
  
  Eh. My views are basically the same, but I do believe punishment should be given if it's by someone the victim knows and/or if the bullying extends from the internet to real life.
  
  Obviously if you know the person(s) who is bullying you, it's much easier to take it to heart and therefore giving a legit reason for the bullying to affect you in contrast to some random person on the internet calling you names and such.
  
  Anddd If the person(s) really go out of their way to harass you and it's bad enough, I also believe punishment should be given. i.e. some douchebag finds out your phone number/emails/all that crap and basically stalks you 24/7. Then it's just creepy as shit.
  
  
  My views on cyberbullying have changed over time, but for the most part, if you can easily avoid it and it's not people you know (or people who also bully you in real life) then yeah, just log off. It's inconvenient, but preventable.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-04-05 07:27

  Quote from TA;831339:

  It's not like you'd get arrested for talking shit to someone in person, so why the internet?

  
  People get arrested all the time in person for harassment and making threats. The internet can undoubtedly be used to threaten/cause real life harm. It's no different from bomb threats, it's just on a smaller scale for the most part.
• Osayidan wrote on 2012-04-05 11:45
  If it's online only, then I do agree that "internet bullying" is silly and has no excuse to go on. As the "victim" there's any number of things you can do to not be bothered, if you chose not to do them it's your own problem. If people go further than bullying, like fraud/ID theft or similar, there's already laws in place for that.
  
  On the other hand if it's people from real life, like classmates harassing you both on facebook and in school or something, then yes it makes a lot more sense to do something in the "real world" about it.