Internet Trolls Face Jail in Arizona
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
You can't threaten someone over the internet? I call that fair, you're not allowed to do that in real life. You can't annoy or offend someone over the internet? I call that a DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
That sounds incredibly unreasonable. I'm sorry, but this thing won't pass with its current wording. It's too blatant a violation of probably the single most cited right in this country: freedom of speech. Another law that applies to the internet made by dumbass politicians, half of whom don't know how to check their own e-mail.
That sounds incredibly unreasonable. I'm sorry, but this thing won't pass with its current wording. It's too blatant a violation of probably the single most cited right in this country: freedom of speech. Another law that applies to the internet made by dumbass politicians, half of whom don't know how to check their own e-mail.
I would say there's a need for an 'I'm from the pussy state and can't handle a bloody joke' icon next to Arizonians' usernames on sites if this were to fully pass.
I wonder how many 'potty-mouthed' kiddies will be arrested for this...there are merits to this law.
I find it rather sad that there seems to be a roughly equal number of people in this thread who think I'm overreacting to an unenforceable, throwaway law, and who think I should be be excoriated for supporting an indefensible attack on our freedom.
I'd say that's really more a property of the general social immaturity within online games and Internet forums rather than a general property of human beings. I don't run into anywhere near the concentration of out-right jerks IRL as I do in an online game. That's not to say that they're not out there, because they most certainly are. But, to me, the concentration definitely feels much higher once you have to deal with an online situation (like 1 in 5 online versus maybe 1 in 20 or 30 IRL; of course, I'm making those numbers up simply to give a quantitative illustration of my own personal experience).Andy Chalk said:
It may be that whole anonymity thing, but I also hypothesize that, though it may have started that way, the phenomenon today is more the result of the socialization of the Internet. People are jerks on the Internet because that is what has become to be considered the "norm" on the Internet. If the Internet were to begin forcing a different "norm", say realizing that social graces and etiquette are still applicable even in a situation of anonymity, I think one may see a significant change.
In essence, the Internet needs some moderation to enforce more civil conversation; however, I'm not sure creating a law such as this is the correct response, as it seems prone to over-reaction and abuse for minor infractions of forum or chat guidelines. The only point at which I could see an actual need for judicial law would be consistent, targeted behavior to harass or threaten another person with real physical harm with a demonstrated definite intent to carry through such threats.
I don't really think you're overreacting but I just can't bring myself to call this an attack on freedom per se. The reason I don't is, ever since I first started hearing about Arpaio and the Maricopa County Gestapo and their inhumane treatment of prisoners, even the untried "innocent until proven guilty" ones, I knew Arizona's governing body was batshit crazy. I also realize that this is a frivolous law that is totally unenforceable.Andy Chalk said:
What state in the union is going to spend he money necessary to hunt down, arrest, and extradite one of their own citizens for annoying someone online? The "law" also mentions profanity. So if I type the word Fuck, which I just did, as soon as an Arizona resident reads that, I am now a criminal in the state of Arizona.
It is enfuriatingly ridiculous and frivolous but I don't see it as a trend that is soon to spread. Particularly due to the whole Federal level Freedom of Speech thing.
I don't think people understand what trolling is, it's not calling someone a shithead or getting them a little agitated, it's making fake facebook accounts, going to the pages of family members who have recently suffered a loss and harassing them, which happens often. But, on their side you can't support such a vague and wide law. I see its need, though, you shouldn't be able to get away with this kind of disgusting behaviour at all just because the medium in which its done is new and makes it easy.Andy Chalk said:
Yeeeeeeeeeeah I had to do a double take at reading that amendment myself.poiumty said:
First Reaction: Hmmm seems a bit strict
REAL Reaction: OH CHRIST!!! You can't be serious
It's very unreasonable and could definitely cause some serious issues in the future especially when it comes to teenagers and juvenile pranks.
If anything the Amendment sounds like a Authoritarian law being passed.
None shall call his fellow man a "Doody Head" lest he be faced with flogging and then a light roast at the stake
How could you be overreacting? That law is most definitely a law that can't be upheld. It's too strict and can criminalize almost anyone.Andy Chalk said:
It's too vague and generalized
I once again take Steve Hughes side on this "Being Offended" bit but seeing as how his video has been posted hundreds of times in the forums I shall refrain from posting again.Mcupobob said:
Instead have this as compensation for offending me with such a stupid law, Arizona
<youtube=RpyeZILiHbU&feature=related>
"are deemed to have been committed at either the place where the communications originated or at the place where the communications were received."
I... wha... huh?! Do these people not know how the internet works? By the very nature of the internet, EVERY communication is literally received EVERYWHERE. I really have to question the legality of a piece of state legislation that literally claims jurisdiction over EVERYTHING that happens on the internet, to say nothing of the issue of constitutionality.
I... wha... huh?! Do these people not know how the internet works? By the very nature of the internet, EVERY communication is literally received EVERYWHERE. I really have to question the legality of a piece of state legislation that literally claims jurisdiction over EVERYTHING that happens on the internet, to say nothing of the issue of constitutionality.
So when women try to make a political statement by asking menstrual related questions on the facebook walls of anti-choice/anti-contraception lawmakers, they could be arrested for using "lewd language" and harassment.
Theoretically, I suppose anti-choicers who publish the names/addresses of abortion providers online could also face imprisonment for threatening and harassment.
Anyone care to wager on the odds of the law being applied equably?
Theoretically, I suppose anti-choicers who publish the names/addresses of abortion providers online could also face imprisonment for threatening and harassment.
Anyone care to wager on the odds of the law being applied equably?
