D
DeeZire
Guest
The imbeciles at the Arizona State Legislature are attempting to pass a bill making content providers liable for the actions of those who are inspired by that content to commit crimes. Their target is the production of simulated rape videos distributed over the internet, but the bill is written so broadly that it includes all content providers, including movies, TV, video games, and even the LIT website.
The Arizona State Legislature is famous for backward thinking. They were the only state to ignore the freon ban when the industry adopted the new spec in the early 90's. They again made the national news when they refused to honor MLK day. It never ceases to amaze me what they'll come up with next, but this bill is a real stinker. Fortunately, Govenor Napalitano (D) will undoubtedly kill the bill with her veto pen.
It's situations like this that make me appreciate the (evil?) lawyers who come to the defense of the first amendment.
The text of a newspaper article is C&P'd below, with the link.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0407obscenity0407.html
State measure targets obscene material
Critics: Bill allowing suits is broad, unconstitutional
Scott Wong
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 7, 2008 12:00 AM
Pornographic videos depicting rape scenes. Web sites on how to administer date-rape drugs. Books on how to build a homemade bomb.
People who create or sell material that causes someone to commit a serious crime could be sued under a bill that faces a hearing today in the Arizona Legislature that is expected to draw a number of opponents from various industries.
Bookstores, news organizations, cable companies and other businesses argue that the proposal infringes on First Amendment rights and makes them vulnerable to lawsuits over mainstream materials now protected under free speech, from gun magazines and newspaper articles to on-demand television programs.
advertisement
House Bill 2660, which passed the House and will be debated in the Senate Judiciary Committee today, would make an individual or a company liable for civil damages if they produce, publish or distribute any dangerous or obscene materials that causes someone to commit an act of terrorism or a felony.
Rep. Warde Nichols, a Gilbert Republican who introduced the bill, said that for too long, the people creating or selling this type of material have not been held accountable. This bill would hit them in the pocketbook and serve as a deterrent, he said.
"We're going after the worst of the worst of society," Nichols said. "We're not going after your pornography that is protected under the First Amendment. We're not going after your Castle Boutique (adult shop). This isn't touching that stuff."
But Christopher Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression in New York, described the bill as too broad, too vague and unconstitutional. He challenged the belief that books and other materials could inspire someone to commit a sexual or violent crime.
"We will be held liable for acts committed by a person who has bought a book in our store and then goes and does something bad because he or she claims the book made them do it," said Finan, whose New York-based group represents 900 independent bookstores nationwide, including Tempe's Changing Hands Bookstore.
"We will not feel safe about selling books and magazines. This will have a chilling effect on the sale of materials protected by the First Amendment."
Under the current proposal, someone could be liable for damages only if all of the following apply:
• The material is dangerous or obscene.
• The person made money from the creation or sale of the material.
• The person was aware the material could result in someone else's committing an act of terrorism or a felony.
• The material caused another person to commit any of the above crimes.
Material is defined as "dangerous" if there is evidence it would cause an imminent act of terrorism or a felony offense. Material describing or depicting sexual conduct is described as "obscene" if the average person in a community would find it offensive and it lacks literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Nichols said he will entertain changes to the bill today that would eliminate language dealing with terrorism and address concerns from the telecommunications and other industries. Companies like Cox Communications have fought the bill, saying it opens them up to lawsuits stemming from material viewed on cable television or over the Internet.
"The language of the bill actually creates huge liability issues for the folks who are the pipes or the conduit but have no control over the content," said Susan Bitter Smith, executive director of the Arizona-New Mexico Cable Television Association.
The Arizona State Legislature is famous for backward thinking. They were the only state to ignore the freon ban when the industry adopted the new spec in the early 90's. They again made the national news when they refused to honor MLK day. It never ceases to amaze me what they'll come up with next, but this bill is a real stinker. Fortunately, Govenor Napalitano (D) will undoubtedly kill the bill with her veto pen.
It's situations like this that make me appreciate the (evil?) lawyers who come to the defense of the first amendment.
The text of a newspaper article is C&P'd below, with the link.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0407obscenity0407.html
State measure targets obscene material
Critics: Bill allowing suits is broad, unconstitutional
Scott Wong
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 7, 2008 12:00 AM
Pornographic videos depicting rape scenes. Web sites on how to administer date-rape drugs. Books on how to build a homemade bomb.
People who create or sell material that causes someone to commit a serious crime could be sued under a bill that faces a hearing today in the Arizona Legislature that is expected to draw a number of opponents from various industries.
Bookstores, news organizations, cable companies and other businesses argue that the proposal infringes on First Amendment rights and makes them vulnerable to lawsuits over mainstream materials now protected under free speech, from gun magazines and newspaper articles to on-demand television programs.
advertisement
House Bill 2660, which passed the House and will be debated in the Senate Judiciary Committee today, would make an individual or a company liable for civil damages if they produce, publish or distribute any dangerous or obscene materials that causes someone to commit an act of terrorism or a felony.
Rep. Warde Nichols, a Gilbert Republican who introduced the bill, said that for too long, the people creating or selling this type of material have not been held accountable. This bill would hit them in the pocketbook and serve as a deterrent, he said.
"We're going after the worst of the worst of society," Nichols said. "We're not going after your pornography that is protected under the First Amendment. We're not going after your Castle Boutique (adult shop). This isn't touching that stuff."
But Christopher Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression in New York, described the bill as too broad, too vague and unconstitutional. He challenged the belief that books and other materials could inspire someone to commit a sexual or violent crime.
"We will be held liable for acts committed by a person who has bought a book in our store and then goes and does something bad because he or she claims the book made them do it," said Finan, whose New York-based group represents 900 independent bookstores nationwide, including Tempe's Changing Hands Bookstore.
"We will not feel safe about selling books and magazines. This will have a chilling effect on the sale of materials protected by the First Amendment."
Under the current proposal, someone could be liable for damages only if all of the following apply:
• The material is dangerous or obscene.
• The person made money from the creation or sale of the material.
• The person was aware the material could result in someone else's committing an act of terrorism or a felony.
• The material caused another person to commit any of the above crimes.
Material is defined as "dangerous" if there is evidence it would cause an imminent act of terrorism or a felony offense. Material describing or depicting sexual conduct is described as "obscene" if the average person in a community would find it offensive and it lacks literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Nichols said he will entertain changes to the bill today that would eliminate language dealing with terrorism and address concerns from the telecommunications and other industries. Companies like Cox Communications have fought the bill, saying it opens them up to lawsuits stemming from material viewed on cable television or over the Internet.
"The language of the bill actually creates huge liability issues for the folks who are the pipes or the conduit but have no control over the content," said Susan Bitter Smith, executive director of the Arizona-New Mexico Cable Television Association.
