Goodbye Trolls! - Arizona bill could criminalize Internet trolling

G

GBAstar

CAGiversary!
Feedback
62 (100%)
I thought this was interesting...

Arizona marches to the beat of its own drummer. But if that drummer gets upset and starts hollering on the Internet, he might get tossed in the clink.

Full Story
 
Oh noes, how would the internet survive if people couldn't communicate through posting large, unrelated pictures, insults, suggestions of sexual behavior, etc...
 
but, there's nothing in the fucking constitution about the internet, therefore this law is unconstitutional
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Oh noes, how would the internet survive if people couldn't communicate through posting large, unrelated pictures, insults, suggestions of sexual behavior, etc...[/QUOTE]

you like this law?
 
[quote name='nasum']but, there's nothing in the fucking constitution about the internet, therefore this law is unconstitutional[/QUOTE]

not sure if you are being serious...

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and to a free press. 1 However, these rights are regularly proscribed when applied to certain forms of speech that have been held to have no, or less than absolute, First Amendment protection. 2 Speech that is indecent, 3 incites unlawful action, 4 and "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" 5 represents three areas where a constant tension exists between the First Amendment's protection of speech and the Government's responsibility to the public to protect it from substantial harm.

[quote name='camoor']you like this law?[/QUOTE]

It looks a little broad right now. But overall I am in favor of curbing and holding responsible those that abuse the freedom of speech. Another problem I have is the anonymity in which it can be done.

Are you against the law or a similar but not so broad law being enacted?
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']It looks a little broad right now. But overall I am in favor of curbing and holding responsible those that abuse the freedom of speech. Another problem I have is the anonymity in which it can be done.

Are you against the law or a similar but not so broad law being enacted?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

I don't like this "abuse the freedom of speech" talk. First off I think it's ridiculously nanny-state to have the government criminalizing internet conversations and debates that indulge in ad hominems. But beyond the penny-ante stuff, I see it being used by politicians to shut down political views they don't like, or corporations to shut down websites that show them in a negative light.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Why do you have a problem with anonymity?[/QUOTE]

What's your name and address? ;)

(I don't really want that info)
 
I think Troy's point was the same you're making. Anonymity is a necessity in the digital age with the risk of hacking, ID theft etc.

And yes, this is a free speech issue and the government has no grounds to police internet speech beyond looking for intel that could be used to stop terror attacks, hate crimes etc. by people/groups that are going beyond aggressive/hate speech to violence.

Other than that, the government has not grounds to censor people. It's up to the owners and moderators of private sites to decide what is or isn't permissible on their forums or comment sections.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Why do you have a problem with anonymity?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dmaul1114']
Other than that, the government has not grounds to censor people. It's up to the owners and moderators of private sites to decide what is or isn't permissible on their forums or comment sections.[/QUOTE]

I don't have a complete problem with anonymity and I understand the need for it to be protected as far as it is not breaking the law or hurting someone. I get frustrated by it and the way it is used on the internet but I am not against it. I quoted dmaul because that is mainly where my frustrations come from. Sites like Topix that have no moderation or registration. So no I am not against anonymity but see the evil as much as the good that it serves.

As far as censorship I do not seee that in AZ law but as I said it IMO needs to be refined as it said on the link "offend and annoy" seems to broad. As far as the rest I think it should be a crime (except maybe profanity) and I don't see why anyone would not want it to be except those that are doing those activities.

"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."
 
[quote name='camoor']Yes.

I don't like this "abuse the freedom of speech" talk. First off I think it's ridiculously nanny-state to have the government criminalizing internet conversations and debates that indulge in ad hominems. But beyond the penny-ante stuff, I see it being used by politicians to shut down political views they don't like, or corporations to shut down websites that show them in a negative light.[/QUOTE]

Bingo, I see a lot of room for shutting down legitimate criticism with this:

It is unlawful for any person, with intent to annoy or offend...
Click to expand...

Somebody doesn't like my face or personality and awaaaay to jail I go.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Not at all.

rabble rabble freedom of speech rabble rabble.[/QUOTE]

Whats this rabble rabble nonsense. Is it part of your Troll 2.0 upgrade

Do you agree or not? Just answer the question jackass
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']I don't have a complete problem with anonymity and I understand the need for it to be protected as far as it is not breaking the law or hurting someone. I get frustrated by it and the way it is used on the internet but I am not against it. I quoted dmaul because that is mainly where my frustrations come from. Sites like Topix that have no moderation or registration. So no I am not against anonymity but see the evil as much as the good that it serves.

As far as censorship I do not seee that in AZ law but as I said it IMO needs to be refined as it said on the link "offend and annoy" seems to broad. As far as the rest I think it should be a crime (except maybe profanity) and I don't see why anyone would not want it to be except those that are doing those activities.

"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."[/QUOTE]

I still think it's bad.

Let's say we start a gentlemanly political arguement (ha) and someone jokingly enters the conversation saying "I've come to kick ass and chew bubblegum and I'm all out of bubblegum" Under this law, using hacky b-movie quotes to get a laugh is a crime.

Total bullshit.

BTW we can play this game all night. You can whittle down the law till there's almost nothing left and it's still bad.

It's just terrible law. We need cops keeping our cities safe, not patrolling the internets for hurt feelings.
 
[quote name='camoor']I still think it's bad.

Let's say we start a gentlemanly political arguement (ha) and someone jokingly enters the conversation saying "I've come to kick ass and chew bubblegum and I'm all out of bubblegum" Under this law, using hacky b-movie quotes to get a laugh is a crime.

Total bullshit.

BTW we can play this game all night. You can whittle down the law till there's almost nothing left and it's still bad.

It's just terrible law. We need cops keeping our cities safe, not patrolling the internets for hurt feelings.[/QUOTE]

We will agree to disagree. As I do not see it as censorship or anything more than stopping criminal activities. If you don't break the law then there isn't a problem (not you specifically).

I take it you are not voting for obama and are not a democrat since they go against your belief.

BTW I love the duke reference. I played the remake or new one and thought it sucked but I loved the original.:)
 
Last edited:
[quote name='Pliskin101']We will agree to disagree. As I do not see it as censorship or anything more than stopping criminal activities. If you don't break the law then there isn't a problem (not you specifically).

I take it you are not voting for obama and are not a democrat?[/QUOTE]

Retarded.

For example, I don't like being verbally harassed on online games but it shouldn't be a crime. Angry noobs should get banned, not locked up.

PS I agree to nothing you say. nothing
 
[quote name='camoor']Whats this rabble rabble nonsense. Is it part of your Troll 2.0 upgrade

Do you agree or not? Just answer the question jackass[/QUOTE]

Thought I had made my answer pretty dang clear.

It's weird, when any particular other poster does the "rabble rabble" thing, you've not said a word about it being "nonsense". I guess it's possible you just didn't read it before, in spite of it being in threads you've responded in. I'll give you that benefit of the doubt.
 
[quote name='camoor']Retarded.

For example, I don't like being verbally harassed on online games but it shouldn't be a crime. Angry noobs should get banned, not locked up.

PS I agree to nothing you say. nothing[/QUOTE]

Wow!! I was actually nice. You obviously are reading more into it then is really there. A law like this, refined, is meant to protect people and yes people's rights. Where you are getting the rest and calling me retarded just shows your lack of wisdom, education and experience. But it is your RIGHT to be ignorant.

So as I said that is one vote (yours) obama and the dems that back his policies wont be getting. Right? Or are you a hypocrite?
 
Pliskin - it's a bad law. Period. If nothing else, the idea that the government should protect citizens from being "offended' by words? Blah. Bad law, bad law. Much like many others that come out of Arizona.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']We will agree to disagree. As I do not see it as censorship or anything more than stopping criminal activities. If you don't break the law then there isn't a problem (not you specifically).

I take it you are not voting for obama and are not a democrat since they go against your belief.

BTW I love the duke reference. I played the remake or new one and thought it sucked but I loved the original.:)[/QUOTE]
Quoted for posterity.

Oh and in Arizona, pubs run the show, so you can't pin this one on Obama.

edit: This law would also clearly goes against the 1st Amendment.

edit2: Directly threating people with reasonably actionable intent isn't exactly illegal, but is already a prosecutable charge if threats became reality. This is why a guy that suggested that someone should kill the president got off.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Quoted for posterity.

Oh and in Arizona, pubs run the show, so you can't pin this one on Obama.

edit: This law would also clearly goes against the 1st Amendment.[/QUOTE]

As it is written now it does go against it. But if it is refined no it isn't and it is needed.

LOL I wasn't pinning this ONE on OBAMA but if camoor votes obama and for the dems that support his policies on this sort of thing then camoor is voting agains his/her own belief on this subject.

As I said in that "other" political thread I am not part of a political party but if one is then they should not blindly vote for someone or a policy just because it has a letter next to it representing that party. I don't and never will.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']As it is written now it does go against it. But if it is refined no it isn't and it is needed.

LOL I wasn't pinning this ONE on OBAMA but if camoor votes obama and for the dems that support his policies on this sort of thing then camoor is voting agains his/her own belief on this subject.

As I said in that "other" political thread I am not part of a political party but if one is then they should not blindly vote for someone or a policy just because it has a letter next to it representing that party. I don't and never will.[/QUOTE]
How about you tell us who you think camoor should vote for then? One of the Communist or Socialist candidates?

edit: Or maybe Green?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Pliskin - it's a bad law. Period. If nothing else, the idea that the government should protect citizens from being "offended' by words? Blah. Bad law, bad law. Much like many others that come out of Arizona.[/QUOTE]

As I said the "offended" part needs to be taken out but if the law is refined then I would back it one hundred percent (but I am not in AZ). I agree some laws out of Arizona are bad but some are good.
 
[quote name='dohdough']How about you tell us who you think camoor should vote for then? One of the Communist or Socialist candidates?

edit: Or maybe Green?[/QUOTE]

That would be his/her decision and should be for who best represents "them" and their beliefs and needs while affording others the same right.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Thought I had made my answer pretty dang clear.

It's weird, when any particular other poster does the "rabble rabble" thing, you've not said a word about it being "nonsense". I guess it's possible you just didn't read it before, in spite of it being in threads you've responded in. I'll give you that benefit of the doubt.[/QUOTE]

OK I looked it up

rabble rabble - When someone takes a disorganized approach to speaking out against something, the result being an incoherent collection of syllables

So UB... congratulations?
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']As it is written now it does go against it. But if it is refined no it isn't and it is needed.

LOL I wasn't pinning this ONE on OBAMA but if camoor votes obama and for the dems that support his policies on this sort of thing then camoor is voting agains his/her own belief on this subject.

As I said in that "other" political thread I am not part of a political party but if one is then they should not blindly vote for someone or a policy just because it has a letter next to it representing that party. I don't and never will.[/QUOTE]

OK then, educate me. What internet communications does Obama want censored? Has he voiced support of this Arizona bill?
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']That would be his/her decision and should be for who best represents "them" and their beliefs and needs while affording others the same right.[/QUOTE]
You made the assertion and assumption that Obama and other democrats don't seem to represent the political leanings of camoor, which implies that you have an idea of the kind of political leanings that camoor has and that you know of more suitable candidates.

If democrats aren't it, then name a someone.
 
Just to clarify as the linked story is partially wrong.... The bill was never transferred to the governor. The bill was amended before it passed the Senate meaning it was returned to the House where it has stopped.

Also this is a bipartisan bill. It has D's and R's sponsoring it, co-sponsoring it and supporting it.

Terrifying, intimidating and threatening people on the internet is not a right IMO. If the bill gets refined I would not see it a censorship but a fair and just law that I would back if I lived in AZ.

edit: Besides Arizona many states with bipartisan support are working to or have enact/enacted similar laws. Federal and State laws are not enough for the medium. Old laws will have to be updated or new ones enacted. They are going about it clumsily, with laziness and they are usually sloppily written but the need is there.
 
Last edited:
So if this passes in Arizona and then other states adopt it, that means I'll be serving a life sentence within a week of it's passage here in PA? :rofl:

This to me is just like all of the anti bullying namby pamby bs nowadays, where kids are taught to go tell a teacher or other adult if someone is calling them names and kids are so overly sensitive that they wanna off themselves because someone is being a 'meanie' to them.

Back when I was in school if someone called you a name or picked on you you fought them over that bs usually.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']So if this passes in Arizona and then other states adopt it, that means I'll be serving a life sentence within a week of it's passage here in PA? :rofl:
[/QUOTE]

You really should learn the laws that ALREADY EXIST in your state. Yet you are not in jail...hmmm not the big bad thing some are making it out to be...
 
Last edited:
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']So if this passes in Arizona and then other states adopt it, that means I'll be serving a life sentence within a week of it's passage here in PA? :rofl:

This to me is just like all of the anti bullying namby pamby bs nowadays, where kids are taught to go tell a teacher or other adult if someone is calling them names and kids are so overly sensitive that they wanna off themselves because someone is being a 'meanie' to them.

Back when I was in school if someone called you a name or picked on you you fought them over that bs usually.[/QUOTE]
The nature of bullying has changed. You grew up, I'm assuming, before cellphones were commonplace in middleschool and pre-friendster. The days of fighting in the schoolyard aren't over, but the schoolyard now extends to your home computer and cell.
 
[quote name='dohdough']The nature of bullying has changed. You grew up, I'm assuming, before cellphones were commonplace in middleschool and pre-friendster. The days of fighting in the schoolyard aren't over, but the schoolyard now extends to your home computer and cell.[/QUOTE]
Even so, kids are so wishy washy nowadays. To me, stuff said on the internet is inconsequential and not worth getting so worked up over. Although just going by all of the recent news stories of suicides of kids who got bullied on FB/Twitter or whatever, many of them view such comments in completely the opposite way.
 
[quote name='camoor']Vote Obama[/QUOTE]

Funny. I suggest to camoor that he do his own research.

He replies, suggesting I do something equally as outrageous.

Good times.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']So if this passes in Arizona and then other states adopt it, that means I'll be serving a life sentence within a week of it's passage here in PA? :rofl:

This to me is just like all of the anti bullying namby pamby bs nowadays, where kids are taught to go tell a teacher or other adult if someone is calling them names and kids are so overly sensitive that they wanna off themselves because someone is being a 'meanie' to them.

Back when I was in school if someone called you a name or picked on you you fought them over that bs usually.[/QUOTE]

They shouldn't suspend kids for fistfights.

I grew up in another country and we had fistfights every other day. No big deal. At worst you would get detention.

Nothing shuts down a weasely name caller like a well landed punch. Kids are savages, they are not going to play by adult rules so why pretend
 
Exactly. I have a last name that opened me up to mocking by quite a few kids and I just brushed it off after grade school. After you ignore the people looking for attention by calling you names for so long they usually stop.
 
This is semi related so I thought I'd post it here.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/06/sex-offenders-booted-from-xbox-live-other-game-networks/

The gist of it is that many online game operators have taken it upon themselves (lets be honest here, cooperated with the state) to remove known sex offenders from their games. I'm kind of torn about this, I don't have kids, so maybe I see things differently, but to me that just isn't right. I mean they argue that lots of kids are on there and it's dangerous to have sex offenders playing the game with them, but there are kids everywhere. To keep sex offenders away from any kids they'd have to be locked up or kept in their homes forever. So because somebody touched a kid inappropriately, they can't play WOW?
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Even so, kids are so wishy washy nowadays. To me, stuff said on the internet is inconsequential and not worth getting so worked up over. Although just going by all of the recent news stories of suicides of kids who got bullied on FB/Twitter or whatever, many of them view such comments in completely the opposite way.[/QUOTE]
You know, kids were committing suicide and being bullied when I was growing up too. It's nothing new, just under scrutiny because of the age we're in.

Besides, who would police this? I really think it's the parents who need to crack down, not the state of Arizona.
 
[quote name='Clak']This is semi related so I thought I'd post it here.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/06/sex-offenders-booted-from-xbox-live-other-game-networks/

The gist of it is that many online game operators have taken it upon themselves (lets be honest here, cooperated with the state) to remove known sex offenders from their games. I'm kind of torn about this, I don't have kids, so maybe I see things differently, but to me that just isn't right. I mean they argue that lots of kids are on there and it's dangerous to have sex offenders playing the game with them, but there are kids everywhere. To keep sex offenders away from any kids they'd have to be locked up or kept in their homes forever. So because somebody touched a kid inappropriately, they can't play WOW?[/QUOTE]

They shouldn't be able to breathe any longer!! The end.
 
[quote name='Jodou']You know, kids were committing suicide and being bullied when I was growing up too. It's nothing new, just under scrutiny because of the age we're in.

Besides, who would police this? I really think it's the parents who need to crack down, not the state of Arizona.[/QUOTE]

No, I think it's different today.

Everyone has a bad day, especially kids, the difference is that every joyless bitch with a cellphone camera can now capture that and put it online for widespread ridicule.

No matter where he goes, star wars kid will live with that for the rest of his life. It's not always that extreme but I do think kids are under added pressure in this day and age of unprecedented video surveillence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top