Call me crazy, but I prefer limits on government other than the honor system.Kwil said:
...that said, this is unconstitutional. Which means it's essentially symbolic. Still messed up.
Internet Trolls Face Jail in Arizona
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
...that said, this is unconstitutional. Which means it's essentially symbolic. Still messed up.
It's not what the law says, though. So no, Andy's not kidding you. He's just...what's that word? Literate.poiumty said:
Try reading. It helps you make informed statementspoiumty said:
On topic, this just gives more proof that Arizona is all but lost and we should just erase it and start again
All the more reason not to live in Arizona. Also, I don't see this bill working, playing Counter-Strike and threatening to kill someone during a game would make it near impossible to prove that the comment meant physical harm or the act of killing the player in the game.
I see lots of loop holes, which means more work for the government which means the bill wont pass or be enforced.
I see lots of loop holes, which means more work for the government which means the bill wont pass or be enforced.
Troll now Arizona! Troll while you can! Troll so hard that they will rue the day they even considered putting you in jail!
[sub][sub]Moo! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FavUpD_IjVY&feature=related][/sub][/sub]
[sub][sub]Moo! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FavUpD_IjVY&feature=related][/sub][/sub]
I did read the rest of the article, but at first glance I was horrified. I was ok up until annoy. Annoy is terrible but you've got that covered. Offend? Well shit, i've probably done that with the phrase oh shit.Andy Chalk said:
Obscene, lewd or profane language? Well fuck me sideways and call me a whore, i've just broken all three of those in an environment where people are ok with me to do it. Seems the government is out of touch there.
Hell, I don't need to go into the rest. But that did only require the once over for me to be all "fuck that".
No, these aren't the same people that did that. The CIA (our local waterboarding advocate) operates with very little transparency and oversight... and we could go volumes on the pros and cons of that, but that's a whole other thing. And the FAA is not a law enforcement agency. (It's a policy enforcement agency, if anything)Andy Chalk said:
I agree this law has the potential to cause problems, in the short term. But the very broad comparison to these federal misbehaviors (which, quite tellingly, most people agree are misbehaviors) is a bit disproportionate.
Sure, someone's going to try to bring someone to court because the first party's kid called the second party's kid a dickbite over Live. And sure, it might make it to court. Civil court, most likely, but let's say somehow it makes it to criminal court... what then? How far do you think a case like that's going to get?
I don't have blind or complete faith in our system, but I also don't think it's good practice to start shooting at every shadow. Better to save our ammo for the real fights.
(To be clearer: I don't like the law as worded. I'd prefer it be revised, rather than passing. However, I don't think that a law like this passing is automatically some awful thing -- it would just require a few "aftermarket" adjustments in the form of judicial precedent. Wasteful, to be sure, but not the end of any portion of the world.)
This is ridiculous. It's like they want to outlaw shenanigans! Why would they want that? Don't they realize without such fun as a surprise Goatsee, Rickroll, or lemon party, the internet just wouldn't be the same? Do they really want to live in a world where shenanigans don't exist?
*facepalm* Dammit Arizona...This shit again?
*facepalm* Dammit Arizona...This shit again?
Yup. Anon will undoubtedly be stirring up a massive amount of sh*t. This is explicitly and without question a move to censor the internet. Haven't been following Anon recently and I've heard it's gone through some political nonsense, but some hackers somewhere will do it (and they might technically be considered Anon simply because they're anonymous, although they might not gather at Anon's hubs).Versuvius said:
For reference, here is the quote from the OP, as I'm gonna refer to it a couple times.poiumty said:
As someone who's big on individual liberties, I honed in on the "offend", "annoy", and "use any obscene, lewd or profane language". However, someone who doesn't have a strong opinion/isn't informed on such issues probably wouldn't notice those things right away.
*Amused*aegix drakan said:
Also, your idea of "make blocking easier" seems pretty useful, and should be implemented.
This law offends me.
But seriously, I could probably end up in court for a dozen different charges by walking 10 meters away from my house. It's less scary/serious, more pathetic/annoying, even amusing sometimes.
Captcha: it happens
Yes, Captcha, it does, especially when an outdated law system is being reinforced in the 21st century.
But seriously, I could probably end up in court for a dozen different charges by walking 10 meters away from my house. It's less scary/serious, more pathetic/annoying, even amusing sometimes.
Captcha: it happens
Yes, Captcha, it does, especially when an outdated law system is being reinforced in the 21st century.
