Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Arizona Anti-Trolling Law

  1. #1

    Arizona Anti-Trolling Law

    This has been coming up on the internet a bit, and hadn't seen it here. Seems Arizona attempted to extend a anti-harassment telephone law to cover the internet as well, but it was too broad and vague.

    It seems that the bill may have gotten derailed a bit, but an interesting topic, and one that shows Republicans like to extend governments power "for the greater good" just as much as Democrats do.

    Would have been very interesting to see if Gov Brewer would have signed or vetoed the law, and it does seem that there is a committee trying to rework it.




    [url]http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/04/internet_trolls_can_breathe_ea.php[/url]


    [QUOTE]Arizona's House Bill 2549, which was labeled by one critic as a "bill to censor electronic speech," has been stopped, according to one of the bill's sponsors.

    As we've already mentioned twice before, the bill was never transferred to the governor, contrary to the numerous media reports saying it has. The bill was amended before it passed the Senate, meaning it was returned to the House -- where it's apparently been stopped.

    State Representative Vic Williams tells New Times that legislators have received quite a bit of "legitimate concerns" -- and illegitimate concerns -- about the bill, and Representative Ted Vogt has stopped the bill from moving forward so everyone can figure it out.

    Williams says the actual intent of the bill is not to throw Internet trolls in jail -- the intent was to protect people from harassment and stalking, and defend people's privacy.

    "We believed we were moving forward in good faith," Williams says.

    The bill was not exactly interpreted that way by others.

    The Media Coalition, one of the biggest critics of the bill, has been citing one of the proposed changes to current statute, which calls for prohibiting the use of "any electronic or digital device, instead of a telephone, with the intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend a person."

    [B]"H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people," the group wrote in a memo to Governor Jan Brewer. "The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person."

    [/B]Williams says he spoke to Media Coalition executive director David Horowitz for quite a bit today about the bill, and says he's willing to work with them for some input on the bill.

    Williams says the group has been "very clear" about what they don't like about the bill, but adds, "I'm looking to them to see if they can help us be part of the solution."

    The bill, Williams explains, is part of a push by legislators to update old statutes so they're still relevant with changing technology.

    The statute this bill would amend deals with annoying, threatening, or harassing people over the phone.

    The proposed bill replaces references to "telephone" with "electronic or digital communications," but to the critics, that makes it a whole new ballgame, since phone use isn't quite the same as online communication.

    Williams says legislators are still attempting to use the bill to protect people from harassment, he says lawmakers are cooking up their own amendments and consulting with people at the attorney general's office and similar folks to prevent another scare about Internet censorship.

    It seems Williams may have changed his stance a little bit from yesterday, when he commented on this blog and on his website in defense of the bill as proposed.

    He still contends there are some "conspiracy theorists" coming out of the woodwork on this one. He wasn't too specific about the "black helicopter crowd," but says they're "not helping move a critical issue forward."

    Still, Williams says he's very receptive to the input that doesn't involve chemtrails and Orwellian conspiracy theories, and we'll update you with whatever the legislators decide to do with the bill.
    [/QUOTE]




    my 2 cents, don't we have laws already for harassment? It seems to me that our government (state or fed) and many people are under the impression that we can legislate bad behavior away.

    Somehow we can stop people from being offensive by writing a law. In the meantime, everyone gets treated like the worst of us.

    I guess it would help Warfish with his FF problem

  2. #2
    Idiotic Law.

    An example (yet again) as to how the best thing most Legislative bodies could do is....nothing.

  3. #3
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,566
    It would satisfy me immensely to see TX get thrown in the clink.

  4. #4
    I guess I have to give them credit for slowing down and reconsidering once the backlash started, at least they listened...right?

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,561
    Dump.

    (this law)

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,508
    This would be bad news for FF2.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us