×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Arizona Attempts To Make Trolling Illegal

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the entire-slashdot-readerbase-sent-to-gitmo dept.

Your Rights Online 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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

474 comments

First Illegal Troll (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573237)

Jail this!

Re:First Illegal Troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573429)

You are a fucking nigger faggot. Go die in a fire.

Re:First Illegal Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573437)

Jail this!

Yet another Mankey Wankey Yankey with ideas above it's station in low life ..

Re:First Illegal Troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573689)

Get your hits in before they sign the law: FUCK Arizona! Fuck Arizona's lawmakers; I hope they rot in hell! If they start kicking out immigrants, then I hope Arizonans have to start picking their own fruit, cutting their own lawns, and serving themselves at restaurants (including cooking their crappy Arizonan food). Yeah, that's right Arizona - FUCK YOU!

Re:First Illegal Troll (5, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | about 2 years ago | (#39573455)

Jail Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer for trolling if this law passes. It certainly offends and annoy me.

Woo! First! Suck on that! (5, Funny)

Kincaidia (927521) | about 2 years ago | (#39573239)

[ this comment has been removed by the State of Arizona ]

Re:Woo! First! Suck on that! (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#39573569)

What happens to "I know you are but what am I" comments during censorship?

Easily solved... (3, Funny)

Gription (1006467) | about 2 years ago | (#39573707)

I assume this bill is on the AZ legislature's website which is an electronic medium.

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:Woo! First! Suck on that! (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | about 2 years ago | (#39573619)

Yup, and I think we all know the reasons why. As a wise submitter once said, this did indeed management to pass...

Breaking news (5, Funny)

bonch (38532) | about 2 years ago | (#39573245)

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:Breaking news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573693)

Maybe your comment would have been modded up faster if you'd been self-deprecating (e.g. used anti-Google trolls as your example instead of anti-Apple trolls).

Arizona (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573247)

I'm glad I moved to Texas.

Re:Arizona (3, Funny)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about 2 years ago | (#39573485)

That is the first time that comment has been posted any where ever. Joking or not.

Re:Arizona (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573641)

As a Texan, I'd just as soon you all stay the fuck away.

Re:Arizona (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573643)

No it isn't. Most of the internet traffic to Stormfront these days is from Tex-ass.

The law is overbroad and the courts will strike it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573251)

The only actual story here is that the government and voters of Arizona are profoundly stupid.

Re:The law is overbroad and the courts will strike (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 2 years ago | (#39573765)

Why isn't it enough to have the existing laws, and just apply them to electronic media?
Legislation in the EU tries to avoid introducing new laws and makes laws medium-neutral. Basically all communication-laws have been reused for jurisdiction on the Internet.

Well, the EU still manages to produce a frightening volume of new laws every year (i.e. measurable in cubic meters).

Management to Pass? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573259)

Typo, please correct.

Oh yeah... well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573261)

This law offends and annoys me.

Lock them up!

Use of English (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573269)

Really?

"This did indeed management to pass through both houses of legislature and only needs a signature to become law."

Remember: (4, Interesting)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | about 2 years ago | (#39573271)

You have the right to not be offended. Right?

Re:Remember: (3, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | about 2 years ago | (#39573441)

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: (4, Funny)

jimbolauski (882977) | about 2 years ago | (#39573763)

You have the right to not be offended, if can not afford to be offended, the court will provide someone to be offended for you.

Even worse (5, Insightful)

bobbutts (927504) | about 2 years ago | (#39573279)

It's not just trolling "annoy or offend" could literally be applied to every word ever written.

Re:Even worse (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 2 years ago | (#39573387)

>> "annoy or offend" could literally be applied to every word ever written

It could be applied to an entire state even.

Re:Even worse (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 2 years ago | (#39573423)

    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 (3, Funny)

hob42 (41735) | about 2 years ago | (#39573653)

Did you just suggest boycotting Arizona? As a Tucson resident, that ticks me off. I'm calling the cops.

Re:Even worse (2)

jimbolauski (882977) | about 2 years ago | (#39573831)

Don't use a cell phone to file the complaint, filing the complaint will cause the officer to do more paperwork which will annoy him and as a cell phone is a digital device you would be in violation of the law.

Re:Even worse (5, Interesting)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about 2 years ago | (#39573567)

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 (1)

vonshavingcream (2291296) | about 2 years ago | (#39573669)

not only polite, but it's almost 1000% more effective, if you are within your legal rights. This law not only outlaws certain "trolling" but also outlines exactly what would be considered acceptable.

Re:Even worse (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573761)

Hello my dear friend. Would you please kindly click here [goat.cx]? Thank you oh so very much.

Wow. Polite trolling is better.

well.... (5, Insightful)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 2 years ago | (#39573281)

They also outlawed teaching Mexican American studies in public schools, so no I don't find this surprising.

Re:well.... (5, Informative)

Brentyl (685453) | about 2 years ago | (#39573389)

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.... (1)

drummerboybac (1003077) | about 2 years ago | (#39573603)

this article disagrees [foxnews.com]

"As a State Senator, Huppenthal helped pass Arizona’s HB 2281, which banned public school courses that advocate the overthrow of the United States, promote racial resentment, or treat students as members of an ethnic group rather than as individuals. The law targeted Tucson’s Mexican American studies program specifically. "

Re:well.... (4, Informative)

sgrandi (725424) | about 2 years ago | (#39573687)

If you are going to be pedantic, at least be correct.... The state of Arizona did pass a law stating that schools can’t teach courses designed “primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.” Tom Horne, Arizona’s attorney general crafted this law when he was the state’s school superintendent. While still superintendent, he ruled that the Tucson Unified School District's Mexican-American studies program violated the law. To avoid the penalty specified in the law (loss of a percentage of state funds for school support) , TUSD shut down the program.

Re:well.... (3, Informative)

Is0m0rph (819726) | about 2 years ago | (#39573671)

No what they got rid of is the racist teachings of La Raza in Southern Arizona to illegal alien Mexicans to foster hate against the "man" in Arizona.

I find... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573297)

this news rather obscene, terrifying, intimidating and annoying. It's pure harassment.

If trolling will become illegal, how will politicians get their messages across any more?

Prior art (4, Insightful)

6Yankee (597075) | about 2 years ago | (#39573307)

It's bad enough taking existing patents and adding "ON THE INTERNET", without doing it to existing laws as well.

Hey Slashdot - what happened. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573309)

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.

Re:Hey Slashdot - what happened. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573361)

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.?

Great work! (4, Insightful)

Georules (655379) | about 2 years ago | (#39573317)

Great work on crapping all over free speech Arizona.

Re:Great work! (2)

Zlyph (1775806) | about 2 years ago | (#39573731)

Ive lived here in Arizona for aprox 15 years now and this is the first batshit crazy thing we have done where Im actually compelled to do something about. In all seriousness what can I do here, now, to help stop this?

Breaking news: (4, Informative)

asdbffg (1902686) | about 2 years ago | (#39573329)

Arizona proposes another batshit law.
The rest of the country is unsurprised.

Re:Breaking news: (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 2 years ago | (#39573599)

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.

Re:Breaking news: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573635)

I am always amazed at how the Republicans want less gov and less laws. Then turn around and try to shove "THEIR" laws on us.

- Abortion illegal
- Same sex marriage illegal
- Trolling (on the INet not bars) illegal
- Porn illegal

What the Fuck is up with them.

Batshit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573649)

Don't give them the benefit of the doubt, implying that the people controlling government are simply ignorant or insane. They know damn well what they are trying to do: expand the business of government, making it more lucrative for the elite few who can exploit the business of government for personal gain.

The correct term is oppression. This is not ignorance. This is not insanity. This is oppression, and it is quite deliberate and carefully planned.

Annoy? Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573341)

The existence of the Arizona legislature annoys me.

profession (1)

freeze128 (544774) | about 2 years ago | (#39573351)

You can kinda tell something about the submitter when you see the typo "management" instead of "manage". This lets you know that the submitter types "management" a lot. Probably a working class Joe.

aka "The Limbaugh Law" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573359)

oh, wait...

Sexting too (1)

medcalf (68293) | about 2 years ago | (#39573365)

And a lot else besides. Really, illegal to annoy someone? Really?!

Re:Sexting too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573545)

Most people annoy me. Does that make them wrong? I think I can get behind this law...

Fox News (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573375)

How's that going to work for Fox News?

Re:Fox News (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573681)

or the stuffy arrogance in NYT articles. there's more than one way to bake trollbait.

Trolling (5, Funny)

DaneM (810927) | about 2 years ago | (#39573385)

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 (1)

skywire (469351) | about 2 years ago | (#39573413)

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 (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#39573415)

Isn't this already covered under stalking? Or does this law makes it illegal to say anything bad about anyone even on a public channel?

Freedom of Press - As Long As We Approve (3, Interesting)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about 2 years ago | (#39573431)

In what bizarre interpretation of the US Constitution would this be allowed? Oh wait, I get it, that only protects written works that were published by a device identified as a "press". Since the internet is NOT a press, what you write on the internet is not considered protected. Civil liberties are no longer a right of being human, they are now a technicality that must be navigated around.

Re:Freedom of Press - As Long As We Approve (1)

idontgno (624372) | about 2 years ago | (#39573573)

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:Freedom of Press - As Long As We Approve (1)

hldn (1085833) | about 2 years ago | (#39573807)

there is no interpretation of the constitution where this is allowed. it WILL be struck down in the courts, 100%.

Hm... (5, Interesting)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 2 years ago | (#39573449)

'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... (5, Interesting)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#39573611)

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.

Re:Hm... (1)

Shotgun (30919) | about 2 years ago | (#39573741)

What does the law have to say about doing his in person? That is, if I get in your face at a restaurant and start screaming obscenities like I just came from an OWS rally, are the police not correct in hauling me off in cuffs?

Meta-law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573465)

Judging from the comments, this law is a trolling attempt in itself and should be banned.

Moderation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573467)

Score: -1, Unconstitutional

Sincerely yours, SCOTUS.

New federal law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573469)

Any politician who having swarn an oath to protect and defend the constitution then knowingly and willfully proceeds to act to contravene the constitution will be jailed for the remainder of their term and barred from ever holding an elected office for the remainder of their sorry existance.

Re:New federal law (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#39573711)

Ive always thought that if, as a lawmaker, you propose a law that is later found to be Unconstitutional, said lawmaker should be charged with TREASON for knowingly attempting to circumvent the Constitution

Extradition? (1)

jc42 (318812) | about 2 years ago | (#39573495)

So how effective will they likely be at extraditing the other 99.9999% of the world to Arizona for prosecution?

Re:Extradition? (1)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#39573753)

they are just trying to make sure that the 99.99999 stays out.

Now if anyone else would please reject daylight savings...

Posting your laws online annoys me (1)

Tyr07 (2300912) | about 2 years ago | (#39573497)

Hence illegal.

I hate electronics, and I'm going to tell the world that it annoys me when they use them. Therefore every is intentionally
trolling me online constantly. Arrest everyone.

I guess... (5, Funny)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#39573501)

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."

intent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573517)

It looks like they're saying that it's only illegal if you intend to offend, irritate, annoy, etc... So it looks like I'd have to prove that you're lying when you say that you didn't mean any offense by calling my Mama fat.

Sounds like one of those laws that nobody even tries to enforce.

Not too bad with minor modifications (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573529)

I think if you get rid of the "annoy or offend," it seems fine. Pretty sure there are already laws that prohibit communicating with "intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass" via non-electronic means.

The "annoy or offend" bit seems right out, though.

It's for real? (1)

DC2088 (2343764) | about 2 years ago | (#39573543)

Oh man. I remember when myg0t clan posted this as an April Fool's joke some 10 years ago. Jeez.

the supreme court will uphold it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573551)

As long as it doesn't effect corporate profits, it's constitutional!

Ooooooh (1)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#39573579)

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 (3, Interesting)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39573583)

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?

Please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573607)

Would all of the low-life supporters of Obama and his communist minions please go back to your worthless countries. This is America. We have a constitution that we hold dear in our hearts. We are not European trash that has to have a law to govern rule over every action.

Oh wait, speaking one's mind is trolling. God help us. Save us from these mindless twits. Perhaps a nuclear bomb or two would be good. Take out a few million under-educated tweeners.

First Amendment? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#39573613)

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.

Re: First Amendment? (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | about 2 years ago | (#39573695)

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.

And where does it end? What about replying to someone's Youtube comment in a way that offends them? Even if you intended to offend them, do you think anything should happen to you? Honestly, unless actual damage was 'clearly' done (not just someone getting offended), I really don't think anything should happen. There are different levels of "harm," after all. Do we really want to go after people trolling a Youtube comment section, for instance?

How do you even prove what someone was thinking at the time they made the comment, anyway? It seems unenforceable.

What can we do? (1)

Zlyph (1775806) | about 2 years ago | (#39573627)

I live here, I am sorry. So what can be done about this from the local persepctive. This crosses a major line for me personally.

The law contradicts itself. (1)

Tyr07 (2300912) | about 2 years ago | (#39573633)

it's actually the law itself if posted anywhere online is used to terrify, intimidate, threaten, if you get prosecuted thats a form of harrasement

what a load (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573655)

of hoohah on Slashtard - this 'law' would never stand up in court, so all the Nancy boys here are getting their panties in a twist...

Surprising? Hardly. (2)

FreshlyShornBalls (849004) | about 2 years ago | (#39573657)

I don't understand why this should be surprising. I only had to scroll back two days for these two [slashdot.org] stories [slashdot.org]. What makes anyone think the First Amendment is any more important than the Fourth? Face it, folks, the Constitution has taken a back seat to Child Porn, then Terrorism and now............"Cyber-Bullying".

It's Arizona, so who gives a flying F[censored] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573675)

WT[censored]?

Annoy or offend?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573701)

Well, I'm annoyed AND offended by the proposal, in particular this portion "annoy or offend, [...] and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act".

As for this part, "threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person", I would have thought that's already illegal. Nothing new about digital communications.

It's language makes it unenforceable. (1)

harl (84412) | about 2 years ago | (#39573783)

I'm sorry if you were upset but that was not my intention.

Remove annoy or offend and it's ok (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#39573789)

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.

Come on, people! ISN'T IT OBVIOUS?! (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | about 2 years ago | (#39573799)

The real trolls here are the people from the legislature! Just ignore them and the crappy law they redacted *on purpose*. Otherwise, they win.

Arizona trolled! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39573821)

I wonder how long it will take Anonymous to react to...oh nevermind.

http://rt.com/usa/news/arizona-butthurt-form-internet-158/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...