Arizona Attempts To Make Trolling Illegal 474
LordofEntropy writes "Though unlikely to pass any First Amendment test. Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer has a bill on her desk that would in essence make 'trolling' illegal. The law states 'It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use 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.'"
This did indeed manage to pass through both houses of legislature and only needs a signature to become law.
First Illegal Troll (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First Illegal Troll (Score:5, Funny)
Jail Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer for trolling if this law passes. It certainly offends and annoy me.
Re:First Illegal Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe this is primarily an anti-cyber-bullying law. Wouldn't want our precious special unique snowflakes to get their little feelers hurt, would we? If some big meanie insults then on the internet, why then just throw him in jail, problem solved!
We seriously need to stop trying to keep kids cocooned until 25. Maturity comes only from facing the world, and coping with its hardships, whether that happens at 15 or 25. Delaying that isn't helping society.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh - now here's an idea for a website: user uploaded public conversations (i.e. from slashfaceplus) to solicit community responses scored and weighted on metrics such as: witty, soul crushing riposte, humorous laugh-off, etc... The initial user could then pick his or her favorite and proceed to devastate their cyber-bully with the best crowd-sourcing can provide!
Of course, any successful response to said bully would be in violation of AZ's new law as well... (I used to be a cyber-bully, but this eight yea
Re:First Illegal Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a joke. The disrespect Brewer shows for our most cherished rights offends me far, far more than anything I've ever seen on the internet. Yes, even more than goatse.
I'd rather live in a world where goatse was plastered on every billboard than in a world where our ostensibly most respectable citizens can propose something like this and not be run out of office with torches and pitchforks.
This is not merely offensive, it's the deepest level of obscenity I can imagine. This is depravity writ large.
Re: (Score:3)
The disrespect Brewer shows for our most cherished rights offends me
Think of it as supreme respect for her most cherished American value...money. And the campaign donations she's cashing from corporate interests (i.e. private jail companies writing Immigration Legislation to make more prisoners) are just more examples of her devoted and deep respect...
Re: (Score:3)
It might be a tie. Not sure though - it's difficult to tell the difference between various shades of undiluted insanity :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the past few years I've made a point to try and read the actual text of any law that interests me and this is by far the most incomprehensible one that I've read. I had no real problem reading the entire Affordable Healthcare Act, but this one just doesn't compute for me. Somebody send them an english teacher to teach them basic sentence structure.
There is a comprehensible sentance after the one quoted above that is pretty interesting:
"It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telep
Re:First Illegal Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
If your trolling requires " 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", then you're not doing it correctly.
Re:First Illegal Troll (Score:5, Informative)
My point is that a troll should be subtle. It should elicit responses (whether through anger or humor) without resorting to those low tactics. The flame war resulting from the original troll may well descend to that point, but the original troll itself should be at a higher moral level.
Re:First Illegal Troll (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, sounds like intimidation.
Re:First Illegal Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
It is about time people in the Western world went back to doing and making their own things instead of expecting the modern version of slaves to do it for them, either in the back yard or tastefully out-of-sight on the other side of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
I was born here in the United States, that makes me a Native American. So unless he wasn't born over here he is a native.
Re:First Illegal Troll (Score:5, Funny)
"I pick fruit off my own tree."
Which is safe because of laws controlling waster from corporations. Funded through taxes.
"I mow my own lawn with a push reel mower."
SO how did you get the mower without using any public infrastructure? paid for with taxes.
"I prefer the buffet anyways,"
created with food that has a minimum bar for safety, and a recourse that you can take if it makes you ill. All paid for with taxes.
" but I cook for myself and family anyways every other day."
With power that is reasonable consistent, and available for reasonably prices, thanks to taxes.
"Now get off my desert. "
Without taxes and regulation, you wouldn't have a dessert to cal your own.
"Liberal scum."
yes, wanting corporate responsibility, and to build a society that can progress, and not have corporation return to the way it was 120 years ago sure is scummy.
"Go pay more taxes while yer at it."
How about we pay reasonable taxes based on services needed to continue to progress?
Re: (Score:3)
You're modded funny, but I don't think it's a joke because a lot of people seem to think like that. The flaw, of course, is that 90% of federal spending goes to the military or social programs, which really don't do much for those issues. Moreover, any funding for regulations could be (and often are) paid for with fees instead of taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
We do pay more taxes, as it happens. I would think as a resident of a state which pays less federal tax than it takes in federal money, you'd be a little less spiteful.
I would posit that most states pay less federal tax that they take in federal funds... otherwise we would not have a budget deficit.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but every single state that went to John McCain in 2008 (the core 'red states') received more than they paid in the previous years.
Re: (Score:3)
The people you're talking about hate federal spending as much as taxes, so it's a double whammy.
Re: (Score:3)
My question is "Why does it seem a state's density of liberal thinking is inversely proportional to the number of adult teeth and sum IQ?"
Woo! First! Suck on that! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens to "I know you are but what am I" comments during censorship?
Easily solved... (Score:4, Funny)
I find this type of assault on the first amendment blatantly obscene. And I am very offended.
Voting to pass this makes it the voice of everyone that voted Yes on it. Let the first round of class 1 misdemeanors begin.
Re:obscene (Score:3)
I invented a perpetual motion machine!
Get arrested for posting a nude picture of yourself. Then that law approved by the Supreme Court that demands a strip search for any arrest kicks in!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
[this poster has been removed by the State of Arizona]
Breaking news (Score:5, Funny)
BREAKING--Trolls Left Homeless After Website Ruled Illegal
Tech site Slashdot was ruled illegal today, leaving hundreds of trolls without a home. Slashdot, founded in the late 90s by master troll Rob Malda, has provided shelter for countless trolls over the years.
"It leaves me feeling naked. And petrified," said Slashdot user PortmanHotGrits. "Slashdot was once a thriving troll community due to its rigid ideology, biased editors, and broken moderation system."
"Where am I going to hate Apple now?" asked one anonymous user. "I hate Reddit, and my real life friends bought Macs years ago. Slashdot was the last place my puppet accounts could go to vent their frustration at iSheep Crapple fans. Android4Lyfe! Hang on, my custom ROM just crashed."
Reaction in other internet communities was mixed.
"Slashdot is still around?" asked several Twitter users. Said one IT administrator: "Whoa, Slashdot? I used to post there when I ran Linux on my desktop back in 2001. I used to write 'Micro$oft' non-ironically. I was an embarrassing idiot. Farewell, Slashdot."
Rob Malda, who ran screaming from Slashdot earlier in the year with half his body engulfed in flames, could not be reached for comment.
Re: (Score:3)
In other news, cries of "Raise the barricades!" and "It's the second Eternal September!" were heard coming from the vicinity of 4Chan as thousands of homeless trolls descended on the site.
Arizona (Score:5, Funny)
I'm glad I moved to Texas.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Arizona (Score:5, Informative)
You joke, but Texas currently (for at least the past 15 years) has a significant net inflow of migration from other states - no income tax (and a reasonable regulatory climate for starting a business or building something) is a nice draw, I guess. In any case, don't mess with Texas.
Re: (Score:3)
It also leads the nation in creating shit-wage jobs, their vaunted "economic miracle" turned out to be just an accounting trick hidden by their only-done-biennially governmental structure. The moment they had to budget, everything came due, they found out 60% of the "new jobs" they had created were minimum wage jobs, their unemployment STILL was middle of the road for the country, and they're sitting almost dead last in education right now thanks to the retards in the legislature fucking over the public sch
Re: (Score:3)
Just be careful what you say there; Texas has a law against the defamation of beef [justia.com].
Re: (Score:3)
I'm glad I moved to Texas.
Enjoy your TSA bomb scare idiocy.
The law is overbroad and the courts will strike it (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember: (Score:4, Interesting)
You have the right to not be offended. Right?
Re:Remember: (Score:4, Insightful)
You have the right to not be offended. Right?
Absolutely. It's one of our inalienable rights. You are free to not be offended by whatever you choose to not be offended by.
Re:Remember: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You should never go for the court appointed offender if you can avoid it. They really don't have your interests at heart, tend to be overworked and generally don't care. Hire your own offender to be sure you're properly offended. It may cost a bit, but it's well worth it.
Re:Remember: (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you're joking, but I have no idea where people came up with the notion they have some inalienable right to not be offended. Less so just because it's on the internet.
I'm offended every time I listen to a politician speaking. I'm offended when some executive gets millions in bonuses for a money-losing quarter. I'm offended when some idiot says the world is only 6000 years old.
Freedom of speech means you don't have to like what I say, and I don't have to like what you say. But neither of us can prevent the other from saying it.
However, I know there are some groups who really do believe that I should in no way be able to say something that offends them.
Re: (Score:3)
While it may not be an inalienable right, it certainly has been defended by the supreme court that freedom of speech applies in all situations.*
* Except for when it will offend other people who have no way of avoiding your free speech. For instance, you can't directly block the entrance to, say, an office building by exercising your 1st amendment rights if that's the only way for someone who is offended by your message to enter. You may not hold an offensive rally (think pro-Nazi rallies on college campuses
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, because that's to prevent you from interfering with the other guy's rights. Which I can agree with.
But if I said "all people with blue hair look silly", and someone with blue hair is offended, too bad. (And, for the record, when I was younger, I did have blue hair a few times.)
Similarly, if I say that anybody who
Re: (Score:3)
While there is no right not to be offended, the offender may have restrictions on their rights if they are making it unreasonable or impossible for someone else to go about their daily life.
Physically preventing people from traversing an area has absolutely nothing to do with speech.
Re: (Score:3)
For instance, you can't directly block the entrance to, say, an office building by exercising your 1st amendment rights if that's the only way for someone who is offended by your message to enter.
Then you'll be arrested for trespassing or some other such, not for exercising your 1st amendment rights.
You may not hold an offensive rally (think pro-Nazi rallies on college campuses) if your free speech prevents someone from going from point A to point B without being offended
Where did you get this idea? As long as you aren't inciting a riot (you know, you are having a peaceful demonstration) you sure can offend other people. That is sort of the whole point of the whole freedom of expression. Obviously if I'm not offending you, then you really don't care what I say. But if I offend you, you will want me to stop, and that is why the free speech is protected.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd actually blame it on the absolutism of religion.
If you absolutely believe something is true because of your religion, then you likely feel it should be illegal for someone to say something against that.
What you describe is the increasing trend for people to want/expect the state to look out for their feelings and protect them from hearing things which go against their world view. Coddling your feelings isn't what government is for.
Re:Remember: (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>You have the right to not be offended. Right?
F.U.
(I am referring of course to the new Fiscal Union of europe.) The summary almost makes the law sound reasonable, but I prefer infowars' spin on it:
Internet Censorship Bill Goes After Free Speech In Arizona The state legislature of Arizona has passed a bill that vastly broadens telephone harassment laws and applies them to the Internet and other means of electronic communication.
LINK - http://www.infowars.com/internet-censorship-bill-goes-after-free-speech-in-arizona/ [infowars.com]
Another interesting story from the same site: "TSA Screener Throws Hot Coffee In Face Of Pilot Who Asked Her To Stop Cursing" :-o Wow.
Re:Remember: (Score:5, Informative)
Holy crap, you're not kidding [infowars.com].
I'm sorry, but if someone in uniform who has the authority to arrest and detain you does that, that should be a lot more than a misdemeanor. Because if I threw a cup of coffee into a TSA screener's face, I'd be sure as hell facing an entirely different set of charges. In fact, it would likely be a Federal offense.
Re:Remember: (Score:4, Insightful)
Starting with the Constitution, apparently.
If they can ignore the Constitution, what can any other law do? That's supposed to be the one that trumps everything.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to have missed the fact that most of our elected "representatives" seem far more interested in expanding their own power than in following the Constitution. Right now the only ones that seem even slightly interested in sticking by the Constitution are the Tea Party affiliated reps like Rep. Ryan and Rep. Paul.
Most of the rest are just roling down the Gramsci/Marcuse/Alinsky crypto socialist road towards the ultimate destruction of the Constitution and most of traditional American society with the
Re:Remember: (Score:4, Insightful)
I expect them, as you say, to be the minimum wage flunkies they actually are.
But, I expect the laws that govern their behavior to hold them to a higher standard. If they look and act like law enforcement, you can't treat them like some minimum age employee who doesn't know better.
The problem is their role and authority in no way matches their skill or training. So in that regards, the TSA is an epic failure if it can't hold these people to the standard that their supposed authority confers. They've got rent-a-cops with the authority of real cops, but no accountability. That's a horrible situation, and as we're seeing, it simply can't work.
If they can make decisions which could potentially alter your life, they should be held to account. They shouldn't just be mall cops on a power trip -- which unfortunately is what they are.
As I said, if I threw coffee into a TSA screener's face, I'd be facing Federal charges. If one of them threw coffee in my face, well, I'd pretty much expect more than a misdemeanor charge.
They can't be law enforcement, but not law enforcement at the same time.
Even worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>> "annoy or offend" could literally be applied to every word ever written
It could be applied to an entire state even.
Re: (Score:3)
France?
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. You can't make everyone happy all the time. In any discussion, argument, or debate, there will be at least two sides. Apple/Windows/Linux gets 3, unless you could *BSD, but didn't Netcraft have something to say about that? :)
I guess that'll be another note in my travel journal. "Do not enter Arizona, I'm probably a criminal there." That list is getting pretty long. If only there were some place that guaranteed the rights of freedom of speech and expression
Re:Even worse (Score:4, Funny)
Did you just suggest boycotting Arizona? As a Tucson resident, that ticks me off. I'm calling the cops.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Does nobody here RTFS? (Score:4, Insightful)
You just bolded parts of it. Let's bold some other parts?
It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use 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.
All those other clauses about threats and physical harm are joined by OR - the conjunction where both sides don't have to be true. The law is just as violated if some suggests you fuck yourself and the request annoys or offends you.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it doesn't even have to annoy or offend you. They just have to have intended to annoy or offend you. Which is good, because I'm hard to offend, but I can still take advantage of this law and sue everyone who posts even a mildly snarky response to one of my posts.
Of course, I may have to moderate my own tendencies towards online snark, but surely that's a small price to pay for the ability to sue such a large number of random commenters. Suing people is fun and rewarding.
(Uh oh, I think my last
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, this means it is currently against the law in Arizona to use profanity during a phone call with the intent to threaten, annoy, offend, etc. Since I am in Arizona, and since it says later on that either endpoint of the telephone call can be the violating location, it will apply whether I'm calling you or you're calling me, regardless of where you are from. It also makes it illegal to repeatedly place anonymous phone calls that disturb the peace or privacy. This by itself doesn't seem too bas, as it only
Re:Even worse (Score:5, Interesting)
But the law seems to imply that annoying is fine, as long as you don't '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.'
So it's not so much a law against trolling, as it is against impolite trolling.
If that is the case then I fully support it. It's so much more satisfying to drive a person crazy while being completely polite.
Re:Even worse (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>use obscene, lewd and/or profane language, and frequently threaten to inflict physical harm.
>>>.....It seems to be a right-wing thing.
"I suspect the Tea Party opposition towards Obama is based on racism." - Jimmy Carter in 2009 (left wing)
"You don't like Obama because he's black! You are prejudiced!" - guy replying to my facebook (Democrat)
"If you don't embrace global warming, it's probable you are mentally ill. We should put these persons in a hospital and cure them." - Leftist scientist two days ago, while speaking at ongoing UN meeting
"Those Republicans never met a black person they didn't hate." - Jeaneane Garofalo (leftist)
I could go on and on and on.
Hate is NOT just a right wing problem.
Re:Even worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as the truth cannot be slander or libel, a considered, rational opinion cannot be a troll.
Therefore, the first statement (which is certainly considered, rational and true) cannot be a troll.
The second statement - that depends. If indeed you have offered evidence of racism, it would be a considered, rational opinion. If you have not, then it would not be. The statement would be a troll ONLY in the second case. A statement, in and of itself, deprived of context, cannot be judged either a troll or not.
The third statement is extreme, certainly, but again it depends on whether it is rational and considered. The evidence for AGW is definitive and I'd certainly agree that anyone not embracing it is making a choice that has nothing to do with rational or logical thought. That doesn't make it mental illness, though. Greed is inefficient but greedy industrialists aren't mentally ill, just very stupid. If, however, the scientist is aware of a link between denialism and mental illness, then it is a rational, considered view and ergo not a troll.
The final statement is definitely true, but being true is not sufficient. If the statement was made on emotional, rather than rational, grounds then it was a troll. If it was rational, rather than emotional, then it was not.
You are conflating angry speech with trolling, the two are not the same.
well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well.... (Score:5, Informative)
Not to be pedantic: The State of Arizona had little to do with one school district canceling Mexican-American studies. That was a course taught at a few schools in Tucson, and the school district shut it down. There are reasonable arguments both ways on that call.
There was some pressure from the state Dept of Ed, but it was truly a local decision.
That said, as a long-time resident and observer, general knuckleheadedness runs both deep and wide in our fair state. If Brewer signs this bill, I can't imagine it withstanding any appeal. This is basic First Amendment stuff.
Re:well.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
It's bad enough taking existing patents and adding "ON THE INTERNET", without doing it to existing laws as well.
Great work! (Score:5, Insightful)
Breaking news: (Score:5, Informative)
The rest of the country is unsurprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling isn't that much different than the important debate exercise of being able to debate both sides of an argument, even though it is not an argument that you agree with.
profession (Score:2)
Sexting too (Score:2)
Fox News (Score:5, Insightful)
How's that going to work for Fox News?
Trolling (Score:5, Funny)
So...if you make inflammatory comments against fraudsters, does that mean you're...(wait for it)
Trolling for phishers? Would that now be considered poaching?
LordOfEntropy's Curious Definition of Trolling (Score:2)
Any troll worth his salt need not "use ... 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".
Stalking (Score:2)
Freedom of Press - As Long As We Approve (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh... but what if you use a Wordpress blog? It's got the word "press" right in it.
Ok, so it's buggier than the entire state of Arizona, and your blog will be pwnd by malware and SEO blackhats in minutes, but at least it's a PRESS. It qualifies for the 1st Amendment. HAH!
Re: (Score:3)
Hm... (Score:5, Interesting)
'It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use 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.
So, technically, couldn't it be viewed that this law is breaking itself?
Re:Hm... (Score:5, Interesting)
I once tried this on an HR droid. I was being forced through orientation of a large company as my smaller company had been purchased. The new policy was that all instances of harrasment and intimidation would be investigated, and that there was no standard of expected behavior. Any behavior that offended someone was based on teh one being offended, and therefore anything could be reported to HR, and therefore anyone could be investigated, for ANYTHING that someone chose to be offended by. I immediately stated that I was offended by such a policy, and that I would like to report HR to HR to open an investigation. The poor guy about popped. After attempting to just ignore me , thinking I was just being an ass, I did explain that I felt that the open ended policy was a threat to me, and that I was intimidated in my workplace as I was never certain what was an appropriate way to act or interact with my coworkers. They decided to take the verbiage to legal, and I quit soon afterwards as management that is this clueless will never change.
It's the "Democrats" fault? (Score:3)
As long as you can think of a complaint that you believe is worth more than twenty dollars, you, too, can sue anyone about anything. Please tell me what the Democrats have to do with that.
And of course, right-leaning god-fearing folk have never been known to engage in divisive identity politics.
They see me trollin'... (Score:2)
Extradition? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess... (Score:5, Funny)
In a related story, Today the Arizona state legislature made Gays, Democrats, Liberals, Mexicans, Muslims, gay mixed drinks with fruit and umbrellas, small dogs, men's skin care products, evolution, gun control advocates, subcompact foreign cars, lite beer, pansies, petunias and 6 other flowers that begin with the letter 'P' illegal. When asked, leaders of the legislature said "Yeah, we know its unconstitutional, but tomorrow we're making the Constitution illegal."
Ooooooh (Score:2)
Legislating morality, with nice vague language; that'll end well.
But on a slightly more serious note, has anyone read the actual bill? I'd do it myself, but I'm currently experiencing some mild Benadryl withdrawal (topical cream, had some chapped lips, couldn't find anything else to put on them last night), and it's making my life slightly more challenging than usual.
Fuck that (Score:4, Interesting)
I am strongly in favor of limiting free speech [slashdot.org], and opposed to "rampant profanity" [slashdot.org], but I have my limits. Clearly, the law is intended to stop online bullying and harassment, but the broad ruling leaves a ridiculous amount of power in the hands of any public individual. It reminds me of those "it's not what you intended, but how they felt" lines from every sexual harassment seminar.
Without further ado, I must speak what's really on my mind, as intended for this law's authors and supporters.. Fuck this shitty law, and everything about it. Does it offend your short-sighted sensibilities that someone's fucking language could be used for some fucking emphasis? If you want to curb offensive abuses of free speech, then use your brain and figure out a legal wording that doesn't also cover anything poorly-worded. You've reached a point where, in your cowardly mind, you cannot empathize with someone else's point of view, that might lead them to say the things they say? Must you censor them, not by attacking their methods, but by attacking their very words?
If this obsession with political correctness continues, we, as a society, are fucked. In my ideal world, intent to cause harm would be illegal, but accidental harm is repaired and forgiven. Why the fuck can't we work toward that?
First Amendment? (Score:2)
I am not sure about the exact text of this or the general interpretation of it but when someone intends to cause physiological distress then normally it is illegal.
Say whatever you what, but if the sole reason you are speaking is to cause harm to another then most people would consider that worthy of being illegal.
Remove annoy or offend and it's ok (Score:5, Insightful)
This is probably going to go against popular opinion, but having read the bill, it looks ok with one exception: "annoy or offend". Remove those two (ok, three counting "or") words and what you have is a bill that says "It's illegal to threaten someone via the telephone so it should be illegal to do so online as well." Remember, freedom of speech isn't freedom to threaten someone with bodily harm or to stalk someone.
With "annoy/offend" intact, though, the law could be read in much too broad of a manner and could easily infringe on someone's free speech rights.
intent ??? (Score:3)
How do they deduce intent?
Re: (Score:3)
How do they deduce intent?
They don't.
They present evidence to a jury exposing a pattern of threats, harassment and verbal abuse --- and let them see the malice and purpose in your actions.
Florida v. Arizona: BATTLE ON (Score:3)
I don't know when these two states decided to battle for the dumbest state government, but it is sure entertaining to watch.
OK, I am confused (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this going to get overturned, if it was passed by duly elected legislature? By unelected judges? I thought a recently as 3 days ago, that was an outrageous activist overreach?
Bad headline (Score:3)
If you parse the ridiculously long sentence in the summary, what Arizona is trying to outlaw is using obscene language, suggest lewd acts, or threaten violence. The "intent to annoy" thing is a necessary condition for the post to be in violation of this law. So if I say "the Arizona legislature can go fuck themselves. I want to beat them all with a golf club," the state still has to prove I did it with intent to 'terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend" and if they can't then my obscene, suggestive, violent language was OK.
I'm not defending the law. I hate it. I'm only saying that sounding off on a misinterpretation of its text, based on the word "annoy," fails to grasp the intent of the law.
Breaking news: Bill being withdrawn (Score:5, Informative)
If I could interrupt what passes for discussion in Slashdot,
I heard this on the radio on the way into work this morning: That due to public outcry, the bill's authors realize they screwed the pooch on this one (deliberately being offensive...) and have quietly asked the governor not to sign it.
There may be another bill later, but it may be slightly less insane.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled panic.
You know what's great about trolling? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That is on the front page of your website. Everyone should be fired, immediately, and replaced with people who know how to write English.
You're advocating exporting Slashdot's jobs outside of the U.S.?
Re: (Score:3)
Wow.
"This did indeed management to pass."
That is on the front page of your website. Everyone should be fired, immediately, and replaced with people who know how to write English.
We apologise again for the fault in the titles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked.
Re: (Score:3)
Score: -1, Unconstitutional
Sincerely yours, SCOTUS.
Considering this is the same SCOTUS that declared corporations = humans, cops have no duty to protect citizens, and that strip searching you for jaywalking is totally justified, methinks thou art jumping to an unlikely conclusion.