Internet Trolls Face Jail in Arizona

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
FelixG said:
Wait, half of xbox live could be fined by arazona?

I can see that as the only positive thing from this law.

I guarantee you that little 11 year old asshat thats screaming into his mic will be in for a beating when his parents get hit by a thousand dollar fine for his online behavior!
Correction, $2500 fine. But it will be oh so sweeter to those little jerks.
 

VonKlaw

New member
Jan 30, 2012
386
0
0
Not an American so call me clueless here, but isn't it a first ammendment right to be able to annoy people (a.k.a. free speech) out there?
 

dubious_wolf

Obfuscated Information
Jun 4, 2009
584
0
0
poiumty said:
Andy Chalk said:
It doesn't sound too terribly unreasonable at first glance
You shitting me? "We arrest people for offending someone over the internet" is not too unreasonable?

Sure glad I'm not living in Arizona.
I C WAT U DID THAR!
:D
 

dubious_wolf

Obfuscated Information
Jun 4, 2009
584
0
0
I like how America has the innate tendency to outlaw anything it finds distasteful...
 

Ranorak

Tamer of the Coffee mug!
Feb 17, 2010
1,946
0
41
1) Move to Arizona
2) Claim to be offended by "Lack of proper English"
3) ?
4) Profit
 

bchampnd

New member
Apr 12, 2011
21
0
0
VonKlaw said:
Not an American so call me clueless here, but isn't it a first ammendment right to be able to annoy people (a.k.a. free speech) out there?
Just because you aren't an American doesn't mean you know any less about the limitations on freedom of speech than most Americans, including educated ones. Most Americans don't understand what freedom of speech really means unless they've taken a class on Constitutional law in college or law school. There are a number of restrictions on freedom of speech in the US. For example, obscenity, "fighting words", and defamation are types of unprotected speech.

With that said, this particular law is overbroad and vague so would quickly be stricken as unconstitutional if Arizona tried prosecuting anybody for violation of it.
 

Braedan

New member
Sep 14, 2010
697
0
0
Wait wait wait. So Arizonianians can now sue Fox News every time they post an article or opinion piece that offends or annoys them?

That is the ONLY upside I could foresee from the TERRIBAD law change.
 

Loop Stricken

Covered in bees!
Jun 17, 2009
4,723
0
0
aegix drakan said:
EDIT: My solution to the whole problem is to have a VERY visible "block" button on EVERY social media site and email service, and make it VERY clear and obvious how to block off anyone who you don't wanna talk to. Because I dunno if kids will think about doing that, or know how to do it. If blocking and stuff is made way more obvious, then it'll make cyber bullying much harder to do.
This was proposed not long ago, and shouted down for being the very stupid idea that it is.
 

Fiz_The_Toaster

books, Books, BOOKS
Legacy
Jan 19, 2011
5,498
1
3
Country
United States
Spartanmk1 said:
I have a feeling that this law is being misinterpreted. Hold on, let me go read it my self. Will edit this post when I do.

Funny thing is, I am looking to move to Arizona when I get the chance. Much more freedom there then here in Commiefornia.

I mean, who wouldn't want to live in a state where you can own fully automatic weapons and cannons, as well as carry a pistol on your hip and a rifle on your back?



Edit:

After reading, and re-reading it. I've come to the conclusion that this law is bull shit and should be struck down.

It does not only ban one from saying just about anything to anyone from Arizona on the internet, phone, or through text. But also says that you can't suggest to 'hook up' with someone through the internet, phone, or text.

Someone who really dislikes everything must have written this. Shame I don't live in Arizona now so I can vote the ass hat out of office.
Oh, there are quite a few asshats that are in legislation here, take your pick, and if the governor does sign it, she will be the biggest one.

I will be shocked if it's signed and I can only see a shit storm a comin'.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
I guess I just don't get what the bill is for. It's immensely vague and incredibly unspecific. I IMAGINE the idea behind it is to bring legal recourse into stuff like facebook harassment where people stalk and harass people or something.

I really dislike what online gaming has devolved into, and I don't really think "it's part of the game, man" is a good excuse for bad manners. Back in the very early days I recall people generally being pretty polite online. Around the counterstrike time is when things started to slip.

However, no court of law is going to waste it's time because some guy in league of legends called another player a "noob scrub" or some such. I mean imagine this scenario if a European called someone a noob scrub:

1) The player would need record the other player called them this

2) Upon proof, the police would need to get a warrant to get Riot Games to release the IP of the player.

3) The police would need to look up the IP and find out it's in Eruope

4) The police would directly contact the ISP in Europe or get a federal or even national representative to contact them, asking them to release details.

5) The ISP would then need to bring this up to a governmental level as they owe no allegance to a foreign government.

6) The player would then be found, contacted, possibly even extradited all so he could pay a $2500 fine.

The COST of finding this person would far outweigh the payment or the crime itself.
 

Tanis

The Last Albino
Aug 30, 2010
5,264
0
0
This is actually pretty cool.

I can move to Arizona, and then get everyone I hate in jail for something.

Too many lolcat pictures, Pat Robinson being a bigoted douche, Joe Arpaio being a troofer/bither (same damn thing), etc!
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend..."

Cut out annoy and offend and it wouldn't be too bad. They claim it's to address cyber bullying in which case those first four things should be enough to encompass what they're looking for. It's bullying when the annoying and offending stuff get to harassment levels.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
So... we're sure we want to keep Arizona?

Actually, I like a little bit of the bill, specifically these parts:
... with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass ... suggest any lewd or lascivious act ... threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.

would be illegal and punishable.
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
VonKlaw said:
Not an American so call me clueless here, but isn't it a first ammendment right to be able to annoy people (a.k.a. free speech) out there?
No, not even close. All that the freedom of speech means is that the government cannot arrest you for speaking against the government. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

OldNewNewOld

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,494
0
0
"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a telephone 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."
Isn't this rather retarded?
I can write "I LIKE CHOCOLATE COOKIES!!!" and it will annoy someone, offend someone else, the extra exclamation marks will threaten someone and the caps lock will intimidate someone because I'm shouting.

This shit is to broad even for the fucked up states of America.

Unlike your phone ringing, you can ignore posts on the internet. Also, couldn't I now sue Arizone because this bill offends, annoys, terrifies, intimidates, threatens and harasses me?