New Arizona law and internet trolls

[bigvalboy]

Arizona is attempting to pass a new law that would ban internet trolls....interesting. Hope this link works.

 

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/arizona-bill-could-criminalize-internet-trolling-184547052.html

[josephga]

sounds good too me. thats why I took down my youtube channel last year. I had over a million views 1000s of subscribers. most of the trolls are not teens or young adults either but 35 and older

[bigvalboy]

sounds good too me. thats why I took down my youtube channel last year. I had over a million views 1000s of subscribers. most of the trolls are not teens or young adults either but 35 and older

 

Josephga, I sent you a pm...

[EZEtoGRU]

Arizona is attempting to pass a new law that would ban internet trolls....interesting. Hope this link works.

 

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/arizona-bill-could-criminalize-internet-trolling-184547052.html

 

Seems like it could be a good idea. I want to see more info however. I can see how it may help nab someone in the most extreme cases, but what in the end will be the definition of harassment and who judges if a line has been crossed? In the end, the law would be trying to curb someone who has cyber threatened in some way even though nothing has actually happened yet other than putting words on a screen. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for action against bullying. I just want to see more info on how the new law would be enforced.

[Guest]

"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."

 

Part of it sounds reasonable, but it's certainly not just stupid but obviously unconstitutional to prohibit speech simply because it "annoys" or "offends" someone. If the governor is dumb enough to sign it, it will quickly be thrown out by a federal District Court. If called upon, the 9th Circuit Court would uphold the District Court ruling. I doubt the SCOTUS would even bother hearing the case, but if they did it would be a 9-0 decision. Of course, it should be illegal to "terrify, intimidate, threaten, or harass" someone, but anyone who thinks we should try to legislate out or forbid communication which merely annoys or offends some people should probably live in another country. I imagine that a law like this would probably survive in Iran or China.