Annoying in Arizona

[JackLuis]

Arizona law would criminalize being lewd or annoying on the Internet

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/R.-Crumb-exhibition-via-Flickr.jpg

The Arizona state legislature apparently finds it difficult to tell the difference between a telephone and the Internet and has passed a bill that would extend the definition of harassment originally devised for phone conversations to anything communicated or published online.

As summarized by the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, “The bill is sweepingly broad, and 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. 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.”

"Jesus, there goes the internet!"​

 

[sr71plt]

Can't extend it fast enough to the AH.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm not sure who it was who said "Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty," but he was certainly right.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm not sure who it was who said "Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty," but he was certainly right.

But eternal vigilance annoys people.

 

[JackLuis]

But eternal vigilance annoys people.

Some people are eternally annoying, mostly Arizonan's.

It sucks to see all your water on the golf courses and your cattle sucking dust.

 

[Handley_Page]

I'm not sure who it was who said "Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty," but he was certainly right.

Who's doin' the vigilance bit ?
Big Brother is watching you !

It sucks to see all your water on the golf courses and your cattle sucking dust.

Understandably.
I draw the conclusion that there are more golfers than keepers of cattle in Az. . .

 

[lovecraft68]

Can't extend it fast enough to the AH.

But then where will you post?

 

[TxRad]

But then where will you post?

The same place you will,

 

[Cruel2BKind]

But then where will you post?

Ouch

The same place you will,

Double ouch

 

[Safe_Bet]

The same place you will,

Isn't this the point where you start running around in circles, waiving your arms over your head, screaming "Shut Up! Shut Up! Shut up! Cuz I SAID SO!!!!!"???

 

[Cruel2BKind]

Isn't this the point where you start running around in circles, waiving your arms over your head, screaming "Shut Up! Shut Up! Shut up! Cuz I SAID SO!!!!!"???

No, but I reached that point several times on the 'why modern men hate women' thread.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

'S why I quit readin' it. And why I most likely will quit readin' this one if it goes on like this.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

'S why I quit readin' it. And why I most likely will quit readin' this one if it goes on like this.

sorry

 

[Handley_Page]

If the quotation I read is correct, whoever drafted it need his/her bumps feeling:-

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.

I realise the standard of my English isn't right bright, but surely that should be :-

. . . . or any person, with intent, to terrify, intimidate, . . . etc.

Note the comma after 'intent'

Or have I got it real bad ?

 

[sr71plt]

The original is correct. If you take the "with" clause out, which is properly set off with commas, you have a good sentence: "It is unlawful for any person . . . to use . . ." The object for "unlawful" is "to use." The "to" phrases in the clause are objects for "intent."

 

[estragon]

sr is right on the grammar, and Arizona is wrong on the Constitution. If the speech sought to be prohibited is directly communicated to the person who is the object thereof, or is generally disseminated with a view to cause the harm the Legislature has the power to prevent directly to that objectively identifiable person, there might be a Constitutional justification. If the statute is drafted as Luis posted it, it is unconstitutionally overbroad.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well, this is Arizona after all.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I wonder if this would mean if you call up a tobacco shop on a cell phone and say: "Do you have Prince Albert in the can? Well, let him out!" that would be illegal.