 jaykaykay4 Ever YoungPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
Scottsdale, AZ
kudos:22 | In our State's defense... I picked up this little article today and found it very much like my own thinking. What do you all feel about laws to deter bullying on the Internet?
April 4, 2012 12:31 PM
Jolie O'Dell
Arizona is considering a new law that would criminalize Internet trolling, and I fully support the idea.
First, let’s take a look at the hard news. Arizona House Bill 2549, which has already passed both the Arizona House of Representatives and Senate, would make it unlawful to “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” with the specific intention of scaring, annoying, or offending the person on the other end of such activity. (You can see the full text of the bill as passed by the legislature below.)
The bill is waiting for the signature of the governor, and it would make trolling and cyber-bullying a Class 1 misdemeanor, the maximum consequence of which would include a six-month jail stint. Stalking someone using an electronic device would become a Class 3 felony with wide-ranging sentencing options that include multiple years behind bars.
The bill seems drastic, but as someone whose job includes being on the receiving end of online harassment, name-calling, and threats, drastic sounds good to me.
»venturebeat.com/2012/04/04/jail-the-trolls/
--
JKK
Age is a very high price to pay for my maturity. If I can't stay young, I can at least stay immature!
»www.pbase.com/jaykaykay
|
|
 StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2
 ·CenturyLink
1 edit | I come down on the "free speech" side of this.
I don't distinguish between bullying online or in RL. One can either ignore it (as the bullyee) or deal with it.
Creating another law to fix some "problem" isn't always the answer IMO.
PS: I got some amount of bullying in school. I wasn't in the list of "popular kids" (probably still aren't) but IMO "that's life". Kids can be very cruel but to me you have to learn to cope rather than be wrapped in cotton wool.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:2 | reply to jaykaykay
The question is how will they effectively enforce it?
Making one's actions on the internet very difficult to trace is child's play with the availability of foreign VPNs, proxies, tor, etc.
Of course, there will always be those stupid enough to cyber-bully without any attempt to hide their actions, so I suppose such a law wouldn't be completely useless.
Also, who's going to decide what is "obscene, lewd or profane language"? How will they differentiate legitimate cyber-bullying from those that are simply joking around? |
|
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to jaykaykay
To suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person” with the specific intention of scaring, annoying, or offending the person on the other end of such activity ought to be against the law.
Face to face, over the telephone, online etc... doesn't make any difference, IMO |
|
|
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| reply to jaykaykay
Sometimes you just have to go "Ralphie" on bullies.
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvijyBIgazE
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
| reply to jaykaykay
I'm not happy about the law, for a couple of reasons.
quote:
would make it unlawful to “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” with the specific intention of scaring, annoying, or offending the person on the other end of such activity.
Isn't that awfully vague? What offends you might not offend me. Define "profane." Heck, define "lewd." Define "scaring." What if you're more easily scared than I am? What if you're not really scared but you're mad at me and see this as a way to get even? And don't even get me started on "annoying" ... lmfao.
So who decides, and can that definition be changed? By whom? When? Is everybody going to be notified when it does? The law seems awfully open-ended and ripe for exploitation.
Stuff like this reminds me of protection orders given to abused spouses - and then the poor ladies wind up dead anyhow. It sounds good, it makes the people who pass it feel good, but it has the potential to be misused and trades away freedoms for an illusion of safety.
No thanks. |
|
 LagzPremium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to jaykaykay
This bill stinks. The wording is ambiguous. Annoying, offending, obscene, REALLY??? Half the people here that post are annoying to me without even trying to be. What might annoy, be obscene, or offend one person may not to another. These words are subjective. Can you imagine someone who is christian or muslim wielding such a law? Should certain subjective speech be criminalized without any specifics, HELL NO! I can see a case for censorship when yelling fire in a crowded theater, this is well defined and could cause people to get hurt.
Their are other ways to deal with this without legislation and its called IGNORE. The reader, listener, or watcher can choose to ignore/skip those things. Plus this would require that all website operators keep records of visitors for an extended period of time, probably years. Like TheMG said, enforcement will be difficult at best. Seems more like censorship to me than anything else. What happened to the days of sticks and stones may break my bones but words will NOT hurt me? Just recently on this very site I was told that I only had a passing knowledge on a certain subject. Was I "offended"? Sure I was. Someone essentially calling me stupid. Do I want that person punished, HELL NO. It was all in the spirit of debate.
People exchange words in speech and ideas all the time that may offend others. Its a shame that a person can not fully express thoughts by the use of words in the English language without fear of punishment for being obscene, annoying or offending someone. Now if this law passes people will now fear being punished for what might be offensive to someone else that isn't offensive to you! From this point forward the words "nails" or "screws" is offensive to me. They refer to a sexual act. Better not say them or ELSE!! Now I am going to head over to the home improvement discussion forum here, I need help with building something for my house!
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football. |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| said by Lagz:Just recently on this very site I was told that I only had a passing knowledge on a certain subject.
Pretty sure I know who that was. The Ignore feature of this site works really well.
said by Lagz:From this point forward the words "nails" or "screws" is offensive to me. They refer to a sexual act. Better not say them or ELSE!! Now I am going to head over to the home improvement discussion forum here, I need help with building something for my house!
LOL
I hope you like "glue"
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
LagzPremium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by StuartMW:said by Lagz:From this point forward the words "nails" or "screws" is offensive to me. They refer to a sexual act. Better not say them or ELSE!! Now I am going to head over to the home improvement discussion forum here, I need help with building something for my house!
LOL I hope you like "glue" Liquid Nails.. errrr .. @#$% .... can not escape this can I?
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football. |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| said by Lagz:.... can not escape this can I?
Does the expression "made your bed now lie in it" have any meaning? 
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to jaykaykay
If one actually reads the new law, it primarily consists of updates to a law already on the books that contained very similar wording, but applied to the use of a telephone in a harassing manner. The amended law mainly replaces references to "telephone" with "any electronic or digital device" in a variety of places. Other than that, the only really substantive change is to add a section defining certain conduct relative to stalking: quote:
C. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Course of conduct":
(a)Means ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(i)...
(ii) USING ANY ELECTRONIC, DIGITAL OR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM DEVICE TO SURVEIL A SPECIFIC PERSON OR A SPECIFIC PERSON'S INTERNET OR WIRELESS ACTIVITY CONTINUOUSLY FOR TWELVE HOURS OR MORE OR ON TWO OR MORE OCCASIONS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, HOWEVER SHORT.
(b)Does not include constitutionally protected activity OR OTHER ACTIVITY AUTHORIZED BY LAW, THE OTHER PERSON, THE OTHER PERSON'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR IF THE OTHER PERSON IS A MINOR, THE MINOR'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN.
...
My own opinion is that there is some problematic vagueness to the law's initial wording stating what is unlawful, but that also existed in the previous law. (Quoted as the amended version excluding strike-outs; caps reflect new wording): quote:
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. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the COMMUNICATIONS were received.
The interpretation of what constitutes "intent", the nature of "harass, annoy, or offend", and the wording "use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act" all seem to be areas where the law could be over-applied or mis-construed. For example, could it be applied to somebody who's merely replying to a nasty message first sent to him, but who expresses a profanity or a "f... you" epithet in a moment of anger. I suppose how the previous law version was applied would be something of a guide... if it was mis-used, then the revision will probably be mis-used even more.
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775 |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| I take a more fundamental view than arguing the merits of any particular law (ambiguous or not).
Life (The Universe And Everything) is not always fair. There is no natural right to never be insulted, hurt or offended. Trying to create legislation, at any level, is not going to change that reality. At some point we'll all be insulted/hurt/offended by someone or something.
As with almost all laws of its type this'll end up restricting free speech and ultimately freedom whether that's the original intent or not.
You go from freedom to totalitarianism one law at a time.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to Lagz
said by Lagz:This bill stinks. The wording is ambiguous. Annoying, offending, obscene, REALLY???
The safety valve here is that a prosecutor would have to see the event as unlawful & then 12 jurors would also have to be onboard as well as the trial judge.
That's 13 14 different people that would have to be in agreement that the event was unlawful.
said by Lagz:Their are other ways to deal with this without legislation and its called IGNORE.
REALLY???
Take it out of your life experiences & put it in the context of an abusive ex threatening you in a chat room that their going to slit the throat of your son next time he sees him or any one of the credible & truly terrifying threats made online.
Some things are easily ignored while others should never be ignored. |
|
 coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
·Windstream
| quote:
REALLY???
Take it out of your life experiences & put it in the context of an abusive ex threatening you in a chat room that their going to slit the throat of your son next time he sees him or any one of the credible & truly terrifying threats made online....
That is already covered under harassment and stalking laws - why add to the confusion?
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC |
|
SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by coldmoon: quote:
REALLY???
Take it out of your life experiences & put it in the context of an abusive ex threatening you in a chat room that their going to slit the throat of your son next time he sees him or any one of the credible & truly terrifying threats made online....
That is already covered under harassment and stalking laws - why add to the confusion? That it's already covered is not a bad argument. |
|
LagzPremium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Snowy
said by Snowy:said by Lagz:This bill stinks. The wording is ambiguous. Annoying, offending, obscene, REALLY???
The safety valve here is that a prosecutor would have to see the event as unlawful & then 12 jurors would also have to be onboard as well as the trial judge. That's 13 14 different people that would have to be in agreement that the event was unlawful. said by Lagz:Their are other ways to deal with this without legislation and its called IGNORE.
REALLY??? Take it out of your life experiences & put it in the context of an abusive ex threatening you in a chat room that their going to slit the throat of your son next time he sees him or any one of the credible & truly terrifying threats made online. Some things are easily ignored while others should never be ignored. That is threatening behavior, of which I wasn't referring to. The words obscene, annoying, offending in the bill are subjective and ambiguous. The way people perceive those words are different and based on that persons life experiences. So who is to determine what is obscene, annoying, and offensive? This changes not only from person to person, but from one time period to another. For instance, not to long ago the use of the word gay was not insulting.
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football. |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| said by Lagz:...not to long ago the use of the word gay was not insulting.
Sheesh, I remember the time when it meant "happy".
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
 FutureMonAch Du LieberPremium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Seaside, CA | And going outside to "smoke a fag" didn't mean shooting a gay person... 
- FM |
|
SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to Lagz
said by Lagz:said by Snowy:said by Lagz:This bill stinks. The wording is ambiguous. Annoying, offending, obscene, REALLY???
The safety valve here is that a prosecutor would have to see the event as unlawful & then 12 jurors would also have to be onboard as well as the trial judge. That's 13 14 different people that would have to be in agreement that the event was unlawful. said by Lagz:Their are other ways to deal with this without legislation and its called IGNORE.
REALLY??? Take it out of your life experiences & put it in the context of an abusive ex threatening you in a chat room that their going to slit the throat of your son next time he sees him or any one of the credible & truly terrifying threats made online. Some things are easily ignored while others should never be ignored. That is threatening behavior, of which I wasn't referring to. Aah, the entire bill doesn't stink, just some parts of it.
That's reasonable, IMO
"“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” |
|
 MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1 | reply to jaykaykay
What I read:
"I'm insulted a lot on the internet because I'm an attention whore. I support raping freedom because it serves me being dumb." |
|
