Arizona trolls

[brassmonkey]

'Annoying, Offending' Language Online Would Be Crime Under Arizona Bill its time to get some asshole out of office

Distasteful comments and online insults are a mainstay of many social networks and online comment boards, but a new bill passed in Arizona could send people who "annoy or offend" to jail for up to six months.

House Bill 2549, which had bipartisan support, passed in the state's legislature and is awaiting one final vote on a minor "technical change" before the bill is sent to Gov. Jan Brewer.

The bill's sweeping language would severely inhibit First Amendment rights, David Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition in New York City, told ABCNews.com.

"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.

The bill states it would be a class one misdemeanor for anyone to "terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend" through electronic and digital devices. It does not provide definitions of the terms and what would be considered annoying or offensive.

In a letter to the governor, Horowitz urged a veto "to allow legislators to craft a narrower bill that addresses their concerns without infringing on the right of free speech."

He said her office acknowledged receiving the letter and said it would include it in a pack of materials for the governor to review before she makes her decision.

The governor's office said it would not comment until the legislation reached Brewer's desk.

State Rep. Steve Farley, one of the co-sponsors of the bill, said the intention is not to stifle free speech, but to protect victims of stalking and bullying.

"It doesn't mean that the person is instantly going to be fined or put away," Farley told ABCNews.com. "But if the judge determines it relates to other circumstances in the case then they can use this as another tool to make that decision."

Including Arizona's existing law, 38 states have enacted legislation against electronic bullying, according to the Cyberbullying Research Center.

"I'm a defender of the Constitution like anyone else, but the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to harass or terrorize someone," said Justin Patchin, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center. "This certainly doesn't or wouldn't restrict one's freedom of speech. If it does, it will be overturned."

Patchin, who primarily studies cyberbullying in the adolescent community, said he has heard from an increasing number of adults who have been victims too and welcomes the legislation.

"We need to step back and realize there is some harmful stuff that is said out there," he said. "And it really needs to be stopped."

full article...

[Coup]

Worst state ever

[DarkJedi]

Freedom of speech got cancelled?

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by DarkJedi

Freedom of speech got cancelled?

yep talk shit you get arrested

[Jakez]

In before JohnnyClips and aliens.

[alias]

RIP trolling 2012, never forget.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

ADG

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

ADG

it's on her desk now. they think she's going to sign it

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Coup

Worst state ever

I guess they are following the example of the UK... and that's a scary thought!




.

[sperbonzo]

Actually, if you look, a lot of states already have this on the books:


http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...ment-laws.aspx

Overview

Many states have enacted "cyberstalking" or "cyberharassment" laws or have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within more traditional stalking or harassment laws. In addition, recent concerns about protecting minors from online bullying or harassment have led states to enact "cyberbullying" laws. This chart identifies only state laws that include specific references to electronic communication. However, other state laws may still apply to those who harass, threaten or bully others online, although specific language may make the laws easier to enforce. This chart classifies the various state laws addressing these three different types of online behaviors, as described below.

Cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet, email or other electronic communications to stalk, and generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors. Cyberstalking may be considered the most dangerous of the three types of Internet harassment, based on a posing credible threat of harm. Sanctions range from misdemeanors to felonies.

Cyberharassment. Cyberharassment differs from cyberstalking in that it is generally defined as not involving a credible threat. Cyberharassment usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting an individual. Some states approach cyberharrassment by including language addressing electronic communications in general harassment statutes, while others have created stand-alone cyberharassment statutes.


State/Territory

Cyberstalking

Cyberharassment

Alabama


Ala. Code § 13A-11-8

Alaska


Alaska Stat. §§ 11.41.260, 11.41.270


Arizona


Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2921

Arkansas


Ark. Code § 5-41-108
Ark. Code § 5-41-108

California


Cal. Civil Code § 1708.7, Cal Penal Code § 646.9
Cal. Penal Code §§ 422, 653.2, 653m

Colorado


Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-602, 18-9-111
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-111

Connecticut
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-182b, 53a-183

Delaware
Del. Code tit. 11 § 1311

Florida


Fla. Stat. § 784.048
Fla. Stat. § 784.048

Georgia


Georgia Code § 16-5-90


Hawaii
Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 711-1106
Idaho Idaho Stat. §§ 18-7905, 18-7906

Illinois


720 ILCS §§ 5/12-7.5, 740 ILCS 21/10
720 ILCS §§ 135/1-2, 135/1-3, 135/2

Indiana
Ind. Code § 35-45-2-2

Iowa
Iowa Code § 708.7

Kansas


Kan. Stat. § 21-3438

Kentucky

Louisiana


La. Rev. Stat. §§ 14:40.2, 14:40.3


Maine
Me. Rev. Stat. tit 17A § 210A (see 2007 Me. Laws, Ch. 685, sec. 3)

Maryland



Md. Code tit. 3 § 3-805

Massachusetts


Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265 § 43
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265 § 43A

Michigan


Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.411h, 750.411i
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411s

Minnesota


Minn. Stat. § 609.749
Minn. Stat. § 609.795

Mississippi


Miss. Code §§ 97-45-15, 97-45-17, 97-3-107
Miss. Code § 97-29-45

Missouri


Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.225
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.090

Montana


Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-220
Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213
Nebraska

Nevada


Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.575


New Hampshire
N.H. Rev. Stat. § 644:4
New Jersey N.J. Stat. § 2C:12-10, 2C:12-10.1 *
New Mexico
N.M. Stat. § 30-3A-3 *

New York
New York Penal Law § 240.30

North Carolina


N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-196.3
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-196(b)

North Dakota



N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-17-07

Ohio


Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.211
Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2917.21(A), 2913.01(Y)

Oklahoma


Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1173
Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1172

Oregon


Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 163.730 to 163.732
Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.065

Pennsylvania


Pa. Cons. Stat. tit. § 18 2709.1
Pa. Cons. Stat. tit. 18 § 2709(a), 2709(f)

Rhode Island


R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-52-4.2
R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-52-4.2

South Carolina


S.C. Code §§ 16-3-1700(C), 16-3-1700(F)
S.C. Code §§ 16-3-1700(B), 16-3-1700(C), 16-17-430

South Dakota


S.D. Cod. Laws § 22-19A-1
S.D. Cod. Laws § 49-31-31

Tennessee


Tenn. Code § 39-17-315
Tenn. Code § 39-17-308

Texas
Tx. Penal Code § 33.07

Utah
Utah Code § 76-5-106.5
Utah Code § 76-9-201


Vermont


Vt. Stat. tit. 13 §§ 1061, 1062, 1063
Vt. Stat. tit. 13 § 1027

Virginia


Va. Code § 18.2-60
Va. Code § 18.2-152.7:1

Washington


Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9A.46.110, 9.61.260
Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9A.46.020, 10.14.020

West Virginia



W. Va. Code § 61-3C-14a

Wisconsin


Wis. Stat. § 947.0125

Wyoming


Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-506

Territories:




Guam X.G.C.A. tit. 9 §§ 19.69, 19.70 X.G.C.A. tit. 9 §§ 19.69, 19.70

[brassmonkey]

hmmm some trolls may be going to jail

[bronco67]

what the hell is going on in that state? Even the liberals suck.

[brassmonkey]

i wonder what will happen if the message boards or social networks allow the abuse are they open for civil law suits

[Tom_PM]

[Barry-xlovecam]

@michael

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931

750.411h Stalking; definitions; violation as misdemeanor; penalties; probation; conditions; evidence of continued conduct as rebuttable presumption; additional penalties.

(2)(b) If the victim was less than 18 years of age at any time during the individual's course of conduct and the individual is 5 or more years older than the victim, a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.

I think the real aim is stalking as defined legally -- not us just giving each other shit ...

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

@michael

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931

750.411h Stalking; definitions; violation as misdemeanor; penalties; probation; conditions; evidence of continued conduct as rebuttable presumption; additional penalties.

(2)(b) If the victim was less than 18 years of age at any time during the individual's course of conduct and the individual is 5 or more years older than the victim, a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.

I think the real aim is stalking as defined legally -- not us just giving each other shit ...

"the real aim" is not well defined and could end up being whatever a prosecuter says it is...


...big problem, I think.


.

[brassmonkey]

the new

[CyberHustler]

A lot of emotional little bastards are going to be dialing 911 after a proper troll session...

[Quentin]

Actually (and thankfully) HB2549 been 'stopped,' and won't be sent to Brewer's desk in its existing form.

My favorite part of the story is the fact that one of the bill's sponsors (Rep. Vic Williams) basically called its critics a bunch of conspiracy theorists who don't understand the bill.... and now he's having to eat his own words a bit.

Williams posted the following to the comments on a Phoenix New Times article about the bill:

As the co-sponsor of HB2549 I can see the conspiracy have their tin-foil hats on tonight.

HB2549 is being chased down by the ?black-helicopter? crowd. Their claims of internet restriction are unfounded and way off base!!

The only problem with that assertion being that the only critic of the bill actually quoted in the New Times piece was First Amendment expert and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh; whatever else Eugene might be, he's not a conspiracy theorist, or someone who is likely to "misinterpret" the scope of a bill that concerns First Amendment-protected expression.

Now, of course, Williams is backing off a bit on his "conspiracy theorist" assertion, and he's actually accepting assistance in crafting narrowing construction from one of the groups that criticized the bill in the first place. So far as I'm aware, though, he has issued no apology, or admission that he was wrong.

In other words, Vic Williams comes out swinging, basically calling anybody who questions the constitutionality of the bill an idiot, subsequently realizes the critics are right and that the bill's language really IS overly broad, finally accepts help from one of the groups he insulted.... and doesn't apologize for slighting them along the way.

One thing is undeniable; he's in the right profession.

[globofun]

What will happen to the GFY Troll Of The Year Award recipients, past and future?

Will Paul Markham be deported to the US to face trial in AZ?

Too FUCKING funny!

[alias]

Rumor has it the bill was actually created to stop Paul Markham.

[brassmonkey]

it has to have some revisions but it will hit her desk soon