Trolling Could Get You 25 Years in Jail in Arizona

[Technician]

[Clonehunter]

What an asshat law.

[Technician]

Trolling Could Get You 25 Years in Jail in Arizona

It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a 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.

That's the real kicker.

Oh, someone in a the comments section may have shed some light on the people behind this bill.

iexiak said:

I want it put on record that I feel threatened when anyone mentions church, god(s), and religions in general. I do not want my child exposed to such things when he visits the internet.

[Megalyth]

The article said:

Opponents of the bill argue that the wording is overly broad...

No surprise there. Welcome to the United States of Earth.

[GreyGhost]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Is this more election year madness from the Republicans or does Arizona breed its own distinct sub-species of asshat legislator?

[Quast]

GreyGhost said:

or does Arizona breed its own distinct sub-species of asshat legislator?

This. Can also be applied to florida or anywhere else rich old white people migrate.

[gggmork]

Luckily the real trolls are safe behind the camouflage of their positions of authority. Its a race to the bottom in the great china-america merger.

[Bucket]

Maybe someone ought to tell them that any troll worth his salt doesn't directly harrass or bully people online - rather he subversively incites that kind of behavior.

[Cupboard]

It's no secret US congress has been prime trollbait since the 2010 midterm elections.

[Maes]

So now these forms:




have a legal basis? Niiiice (with a Borat accent)

[DoomUK]

annoy or offend

So posting anything comes with potential legal ramifications.

[Technician]

DoomUK said:

So posting anything comes with potential legal ramifications.

Or use excessive profanity, apparently.

I can see America attempting to make the internet rated G, I really can.

[The Lag]

.

Edited June 17, 2023 by The Lag

[Coopersville]

The mental image of jails being overcrowded with pot smokers and now 4chan users amuses me. In a way, some of us will finally be able to live our /v/ Mansion fantasy.

[DeathevokatioN]

wow, this is the most ridiculous law ever... it needs to pass!

[TimeOfDeath]

haters gonna hate...
haters got a cell mate...

[Clonehunter]

Now 4channers can experience true butthurt with the help of Big Bubba.

[NiGHTMARE]

Opponents of the bill argue that the wording is overly broad and could easily be interpreted to include not just one-on-one communications but public forums like 4Chan, Reddit, and anywhere else that allows commenting. You thought the banhammer was bad? Try handcuffs.

I would say the wording of the bill could easily be interpreted to include non-internet related electronic media, such as TV and radio. Heck, non-electronic media that was created via an electronic device (e.g. newspapers and magazines) could be included. In fact, if Stephen Hawking were ever to visit Arizona, he should be very careful what he says...

If this law does get passed, I would suggest people pay close attention to anything members the Arizona Legislature who support it say, and make sure they get a taste of their own medicine.

[Snakes]

I don't understand why you faggots don't like this bill!

[Maes]

Snakes said:

I don't understand why you faggots don't like this bill!

Well played, sir, well played.

[GreyGhost]

Snakes said:

I don't understand why you faggots don't like this bill!

It'll force some of us to find new ways to entertain ourselves. BTW - I'm deeply offended by your insinuation that I look like a bundle of sticks!

[Dco16]

I'm pretty sure it's legal in Arizona to just shoot someone who pisses you off on the internet. This new law saves lives.

[Justince]

r_init: getpostnumberforname: post not found!

Edited July 28, 2017 by Justince

[Graf Zahl]

Sigh...

What is it with lawmakers that they always manage to bury good intent in such bad language that doesn't mean anything concrete?

To be clear: I have no problems with anti-harassment laws and I can clearly see what they wanted here - but I have serious issues with the word soup that came out at the end after the legal zombies had their say.

[printz]

So it's basically a failure bill (there's no way it will get passed in this form -- unlike the dreaded online copyright bills, this one has nothing to do with "no.1" problems of the world (piracy/terrorism/I forgot), but it assaults the free speech directly). Indeed, sigh.

[geo]

People don't understand that being a jerk is a first ammendment right.

[Technician]

geo said:

People don't understand that being a jerk is a first ammendment right.

It's all this "internet bullying" horseshit that has gotten people so sensitive to the net.

I don't know, words like terrorism, or pedophilia, or bullying make people hand over obvious liberties without even a neuron firing.

[Graf Zahl]

Ok, people, what makes you think you have a right to verbally harass others. Such a law may be news to you Americans but here in Germany people have already been convicted because they abused the internet to inflict harm on others.

It just so happened a few weeks ago. There was a child murder here in Germany. The police arrested someone. Some jerk on the internet 'organized' a rally to 'punish' the one being arrested. And then: The arrested person was proven innocent. So would you want to let that jerk go free or being punished for the chaos he caused? From what I read here you are fine with such an asshole trying to hurt someone just 'because it's fun'.

I am sick and tired of this attitude you show here. There have to be limits to free speech - and they have to precisely there where they cross the boundary between stating an opinion and attacking others personally with the intent to cause harm.



(Disclaimer: This doesn't mean that I approve of the law as written. In fact I don't even understand what it's supposed to mean. The language is so atrociously convoluted that it probably means nothing and everything at the same time...)

[Wagi]

Graf Zahl said:

It just so happened a few weeks ago. There was a child murder here in Germany. The police arrested someone. Some jerk on the internet 'organized' a rally to 'punish' the one being arrested. And then: The arrested person was proven innocent. So would you want to let that jerk go free or being punished for the chaos he caused? From what I read here you are fine with such an asshole trying to hurt someone just 'because it's fun'.

That falls under the category of "Screaming "Fire!" in a movie theater when there is no fire". Those comments call actual harm. There are already laws against that in America. What they're trying to make illegal here is things like saying "You're a fucking idiot." over Facebook.

[Technician]

Graf Zahl said:

Loads of horseshit

1) It's already a crime to make direct threats over any medium.

2) If enforcement of this bill is strict, I can be prosecuted by just calling you a simple-brained dickhead. You shouldn't have the right to not be offended. And yeah, "intent to cause harm" just becasue someone calls you an idiot. Don't assume I will make physical attacks with my verbal observations.

3) Just becasue an incident was prevented by liberty restricting laws, that doesn't mean I want to sacrifice said liberties for a false sense of security. Security so rare, it's almost happenstance anyway.