Possible new Arizona Law to censor the Internet.

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
The law would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using "obscene, lewd or profane language" or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act, if done with the intent to "terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend."

H.B. 2549 "would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying," Media Coalition says on its website -- at least for now, until what it says is found to be offensive or annoying by those in Arizona.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...a-legislature-passes-internet-censorship-bill

"Though Arizona is doing its best to criminalize birth control and immigration, among other facets of the modern world, it still hasn't banned electricity," the post says. "In fact, Arizona legislators use 'digital device' to draft legislation that is often plainly intended to annoy or offend anyone with a conscience. When Arizona legislators outlaw trolling, only outlaws will be Arizona legislators."

Looks like they will be banning Faux News ASAP... :D

http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/arizona-law-would-censor-internet-631407
 
Last edited:

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Why don't you comment on the post instead of using a cheap shot for once?

cheap shot? lol more like a bullseye.


This bill expands the protections against stalking. It is not an attack on free speech as the media bozos and the blind lemmings claim.


Overview

HB 2549 updates current statute to make unlawful any misuse of electronic or digital devices to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, offend or in the course of conduct of stalking.

History
Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 13-2921 defines harassment as conduct that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed. Offenses of harassment range from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 5 felony. Stalking is defined as maintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person or directing verbal, written or other threats, whether express or implied, to a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short (A.R.S. § 13-2923). Offenses of stalking range from a class 3 to a class 5 felony.

Currently there are several statutes that protect against the use of devices in acts of harassment and stalking. A.R.S. §13-2916 makes it unlawful for any person who intends to terrify, intimidate or threaten, to use a telephone in order to use any obscene/lewd language, or threaten physical harm to the person or property of any person. Furthermore A.R.S. § 13-3019 makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly photograph, videotape, film, digitally record or by any other means secretly view, with or without a device, another person without that person’s consent in a location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy as well as making it unlawful to disclose, display, distribute or publish a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording made without the consent or knowledge of the person depicted.

Provisions
· Expands the unlawful use of a telephone with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend to encompass any electronic or digital device and communications.

· Revises the definition of the course of conduct of stalking to include the use of any electronic, digital or global positioning system device to surveil a specific person or a specific person’s internet or wireless activity.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120402090814AAv9aiR
 
Last edited:

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
Why don't you comment on the post instead of using a cheap shot for once?

I was making fun of the law . . . .i mean what determines "annoying". Is it how sexual harrassment laws are setup? The woman "feels" harrassed even though the man did nothing . . . ? what's the threshold on this ?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
cheap shot? lol more like a bullseye.


This bill expands the protections against stalking. It is not an attack on free speech as the media bozos and the blind lemmings claim.


Overview

HB 2549 updates current statute to make unlawful any misuse of electronic or digital devices to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, offend or in the course of conduct of stalking.

History
Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 13-2921 defines harassment as conduct that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed. Offenses of harassment range from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 5 felony. Stalking is defined as maintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person or directing verbal, written or other threats, whether express or implied, to a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short (A.R.S. § 13-2923). Offenses of stalking range from a class 3 to a class 5 felony.

Currently there are several statutes that protect against the use of devices in acts of harassment and stalking. A.R.S. §13-2916 makes it unlawful for any person who intends to terrify, intimidate or threaten, to use a telephone in order to use any obscene/lewd language, or threaten physical harm to the person or property of any person. Furthermore A.R.S. § 13-3019 makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly photograph, videotape, film, digitally record or by any other means secretly view, with or without a device, another person without that person’s consent in a location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy as well as making it unlawful to disclose, display, distribute or publish a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording made without the consent or knowledge of the person depicted.

Provisions
· Expands the unlawful use of a telephone with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend to encompass any electronic or digital device and communications.

· Revises the definition of the course of conduct of stalking to include the use of any electronic, digital or global positioning system device to surveil a specific person or a specific person’s internet or wireless activity.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120402090814AAv9aiR

http://www.mediacoalition.org/Arizona-House-Bill-2549-Censoring-Electronic-Speech

Arizona House Bill 2549: Bill to Censor Electronic Speech on Governor's Desk

Memo in Opposition to H.B. 2549 Before the Full Senate
Memo in Opposition to H.B. 2549 in the Senate Rules Committee
H.B. 2549 as Passed by the Legislature
Letter to Governor Brewer
Media Coalition's Memo in Opposition to H.B. 2549
Arizona H.B. 2549
Arizona House Bill 2549 would update the state's telephone harassment law to apply to the Internet and other electronic communications. It would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to "annoy," "offend," "harass" or "terrify," as well as certain sexual speech. However, because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying.

Most Recent News: H.B. 2549 passed the legislature on March 29 and is on Governor Jan Brewer's desk awaiting her decision on whether to veto or sign the bill. Media Coalition sent a letter explaining our concerns to Gov. Brewer, her chief of staff Eileen Klein, and Joe Scarriotta, general counsel, on the same day it passed.

After passing out of the Senate Rules Committee, the Democratic and Republican caucuses passed the bill onto the full Senate for consideration of whether or not to put H.B. 2549 to a vote. Media Coalition sent a memo to every member of the Arizona State Senate.

On March 14, Media Coalition sent a memo to the Senate Rules Committee regarding constitutional infirmities in H.B. 2549.

Media Coalition sent a memo in opposition to the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 8, ahead of a hearing on the bill on March 11.

updated 3/30/12

We must be reading different articles... ;) Lemmings??? LMAO
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
It's funny how these things work. If they're censoring 'our' internet, it's big government tyranny.

But when they convince people there's an enemy to be censored, so they're censoring 'those' perverts or left-wing radicals or terrorists or whatever, go for it!

That's how so many issues work - take the Trayvon story, when he's a 'kid we can relate to' it's a scandal, when he's a 'young punk black thug', people make excuses.

It's how it's worked a long time - McCarthyism was accepted when it was 'protecting us from the enemy communists', and rejected when it was about 'our freedoms'.

Welfare - people were 'Americans' when it passed, remembering the Great Depression and a 'war on poverty' was an 'American priority'.

Then it turned to 'those' blacks and minorities - screw that!

Civil rights - same thing, when whites were initially so against 'those people' changing things, until it became 'our rights as Americans'.

That's why campaign marketing has been so much about making the people feel alienated about the 'enemy candidate'.

With John Kerry it was painting him as feminine and French, with Obama it's Muslim, foreign, raised in a Madrassa, pals with terrorists, radical. Not one of us!

The left has had great success when it's painted a candidate as too 'aloof' - with Bush 41, with Romney. It's why Bush 43 made such a point of 'Nook ya lur'. He's no elitist!

This is how rights get stripped. They'll find one or a few examples of the internet content most offensive to people and use that to build support for 'doing something'.
 
Last edited:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
I dont think Brewer will sign this.

“H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. 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.”
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,726
52,559
136
I'm glad that Arizona seems to be taking the mantle from Texas as the 'holy shit, what the fuck is wrong with you' state.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
"Though Arizona is doing its best to criminalize birth control and immigration, among other facets of the modern world, it still hasn't banned electricity," the post says. "In fact, Arizona legislators use 'digital device' to draft legislation that is often plainly intended to annoy or offend anyone with a conscience. When Arizona legislators outlaw trolling, only outlaws will be Arizona legislators."


Actually no, we've done no such thing.
 

Gerle

Senior member
Aug 9, 2009
587
6
81
Arizona and Texas are among the states I want to live in, less nanny state and more send for yourself. I'm not so sure about this proposal though, how do you define "with intent to offend"?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I'm glad that Arizona seems to be taking the mantle from Texas as the 'holy shit, what the fuck is wrong with you' state.

Hardly.

Joining them, but no that matle is pretty safe.

Actually to be fair, Texas gets some credit for recent history where, because of cost cutting, they accepted a Democrat's plan to shift from building new prisons to rehabilitation - and it's been a great success, saving an estimated $2 billion and reducing the previously increasing prison population. They closed a prison for the first time ever.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Arizona and Texas are among the states I want to live in, less nanny state and more send for yourself. I'm not so sure about this proposal though, how do you define "with intent to offend"?

When we Californians talk about how we have a 'red state within California', our inland, rural parts, this is what we're talking about - this poster from Twentynine Palms CA.

He may as well be in AZ or TX, it's desert, in San Bernadino County, and quite 'red' politicially.

I don't get it, but we have it, in contrast to the far more populated coastal cities.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
I dont think Brewer will sign this.

“H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. 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.”
Not to mention that the standards of "annoy" and "offend" have no business being in any law to begin with, never mind splitting hairs about whether the effect ever actually materializes. Who knew Arizona was so desperate to be repatriated to the British empire! Bunch of first amendment hating redcoats in Arizona.
 

Gerle

Senior member
Aug 9, 2009
587
6
81
When we Californians talk about how we have a 'red state within California', our inland, rural parts, this is what we're talking about - this poster from Twentynine Palms CA.

He may as well be in AZ or TX, it's desert, in San Bernadino County, and quite 'red' politicially.

I don't get it, but we have it, in contrast to the far more populated coastal cities.

Oddly enough I'm not "red" at all, nor am I from 29. I do know what you mean though, this area is very different from the more populated parts of California. San Bernardino, not Bernadino.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
I'm glad that Arizona seems to be taking the mantle from Texas as the 'holy shit, what the fuck is wrong with you' state.

Hardly, but Illinois(blame Chicago) and New York and the Californians already have the top three spots on lockdown