Arizona bans Internet trolling

[alchemist]

No more slagging off Twilight, then

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04...ouse_bill2549/

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.

[Moonbat]

That seems crazy, I can agree with the words 'terrify, intimidate and threaten' but 'annoy'? Are we serious that someone could say that they are 'annoyed' by another person's postings and that it would be construed as an illegal act, crikey!!

I suppose that it is the intent that is important, plenty of things annoy me but they probably didn't set out to do so, like twilight for example.

[Parson]

Talk about your impossible law to enforce. "I had no intent to annoy him, I thought it was a joke." I mean, get real. Laws can't enforce common sense ethical behavior when so many people lack that common sense.

[mosaix]

It's impossible to enforce, not because of intent, but because they're not going to bother going after someone in another country who can abuse whoever they like in Arizona.

[Vladd67]

They'll probably just use it so they claim probable cause when they arrest someone.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Parson

Talk about your impossible law to enforce. "I had no intent to annoy him, I thought it was a joke." I mean, get real. Laws can't enforce common sense ethical behavior when so many people lack that common sense.

Far more dangerous are those laws which allow the offended to define the offence, so that lack of intent, or even awareness, would be no defence.

The UK government, in a 2006 Act, tried to put this very concept on the statute book, but was forced to add the concept of intent. According to Wiki:

The bill contains wording to amend the Public Order Act 1986:

• Section 29A
  • Meaning of "religious hatred"
    • In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.

• Section 29B:
  • (1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

Critics of the Bill (before the amendments noted below, adding the requirement for the intention of stirring up hatred) claimed that the Act would make major religious works such as the Bible and the Qur'an illegal in their current form in the UK. Comedians and satirists also feared prosecution for their work. While sympathising with those who promoted the legislation, in particular British Muslims, actor and comedian Rowan Atkinson said: "I appreciate that this measure is an attempt to provide comfort and protection to them but unfortunately it is a wholly inappropriate response far more likely to promote tension between communities than tolerance."[4] Leaders of major religions and race groups, as well as non-religious groups such as the National Secular Society and English PEN spoke out against the Bill.

Supporters of the Bill responded that all UK legislation has to be interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998, which guarantees freedom of religion and expression, and so denied that an Act of Parliament is capable of making any religious text illegal.

The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention - and not just the possibility - of stirring up religious hatred.

The Government attempted to overturn these changes, but lost the House of Commons votes on 31 January 2006.

It's good to see that the opponents of free speech were keen that religions could continue to "blaspheme" each other. Inadvertent offence is such a terrible crime that it couldn't possibly be allowed to exist, while inter-faith strife is obviously noble (as long as your words were written in a holy book of some sort).

*shakes head*

(And let's be clear: as in many of these cases, those driving legislation like this are unlikely to be particularly religious; they just like taking up the cudgel on behalf of what they see as the views of the religious, whether or not those views are held. The process is a well-known strategy in the trawling for votes; the gaining of these votes trumps any side effects, however severe, of such legislation.)


[/climbs off hobbyhorse]

[paranoid marvin]

I suppose if you're looking to build bridges, a lack of trolls is a good thing.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

Far more dangerous are those laws which allow the offended to define the offence, so that lack of intent, or even awareness, would be no defence.

Point taken. I would say that laws restraining speech are sometimes necessary but always problematic at best, irrational at worst.

[paranoid marvin]

The problem with free speech is that there has never been such a thing. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time and you're in trouble. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is debatable, but if youi're prepared to stand up and say something , then you have to accept the consequences.

[Huttman]

"Yiiiiiihaaaa!!!! I luvs dis state!" he says with a (non-threatening) sarcasm.







<------

[j. d. worthington]

This is Gov. Jan Brewer and her bunch. She of the mythical "beheadings in the desert" debacle; from a state which has had representatives make the statement that blacks were better off under slavery, etc. The Arizona legislature may yet end up being used as an example for the very definition of idiocy.....

As for "offending" anyone on the internet or otherwise -- you cannot have free speech (even moderately free speech) without offending people. You cannot not have it without offending everyone, for every single person will, at some point, make a statement, defend a stance, posit an argument, which will offend, annoy, aggravate, and irritate not just an individual, but a multitude. One could well make the argument that, in posing this bit of legislation, the people involved are high on the list of doing precisely what the bill is supposed to eliminate....

In other words, it is not only an indefensible, unenforceable, and abominably-worded law; it is simply damned stupid.

[hopewrites]

I have never been in favor of "common sense laws" nor the idea that said sense should be taught in schools. A parents responsibility should lie squarely with said parent, not on the shoulders of governments or educators.
I think America's education standard would come up if we had more time to teach Math and English instead of spending all our time and energy teaching how to shift blame and be human. Your supposed to learn how to shift blame from the bullies on the playground and how to be human from your family and extended community. But like the wolves of Yellowstone, bullies are being hunted down, though unlike the wolves of Yellowstone, they will never truly die off so if we ever come to our senses and stop hunting them they will come back on their own and not need to be reintroduced.

[Peter Graham]

Banning internet trolling? They'll be banning firearms next.......

[Bowler1]

I think it will be more interesting to see how this law will be applied. The US/UK extradition laws are currently being used to have a number of UK residents tried under US law, the UK so far seems to be complying with these extradition requests.

In the Rep of Ireland similar extradition requests have been received but refused – why? – because under ROI law there was no case to answer, so therefore – there was no reason to extradite these persons to the US. The UK could learn a lot from this.

This law in Arizona could be applied with common sense and if it is, then banning trolling would be a good thing. The home of the 1st Amendment, when it comes to the internet, has not been doing well recently and that is the problem.

I have visions of laptop burnings in an attempt to stop the internet. The world is full of laws based on good intensions that have since been misused!

I can see both sides of this, but I’m with the general consensus here, this seems to me to be a bad thing.