Broadband Tech > Security > Security > In our State's defense...

Under the proposed Arizona law, Franklin certainly would have been prosecuted for being "annoying". His whole point was to be annoying.

A law that outlaws being annoying---sounds like something that the Chinese Communist leadership would love.

It's not any type of annoying that would be codified.
Here's a clue.
Use obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act to annoy someone be careful because under the proposal you cannot do that with complete impunity.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

H.B. 2549 would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to “annoy,” “offend,” “harass” or “terrify.” The legislation offers no definitions for “annoy,” “offend,” “harass” or “terrify.” “Electronic or digital device” is defined only as any wired or wireless communication device and multimedia storage device. “Lewd” and “profane” are not defined in the statute or by reference.

Government may criminalize speech that rises to the level of harassment and many have laws that do so, but this legislation reaches a much broader range of communication. H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. It would apply to general communication on web sites, blogs, listserves and other Internet communication. The communication does not need to be repetitive or unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. It is unclear if the communication must be intended to offend or annoy a specific person or if a general intent to do so is sufficient.

There are numerous recent examples of speech that was intended to be provocative that could be criminal under H.B. 2549. When a Danish newspaper posted pictures of Muhammad, they were intended to be offensive to Muslims to make a point about religion but this could be a crime if a Muslim in Arizona viewed the pictures online and considered them profane. Some Arizona residents may consider Rush Limbaugh’s recent comments about a Georgetown law student lewd. He could be prosecuted if he intended his comments to be offensive. Similarly, much general content available in the media uses racy or profane language and is intended to offend, annoy or even terrify. Bill Maher’s stand up routines and Jon Stewart’s nightly program, Ann Coulter’s books discussing liberals and Christopher Hitchens’ writing expressing his distaste for religion or Mother Theresa, Stephen King’s novels or the Halloween films all could be subject to this legislation. Even common banter online about sports between rival fans frequently is meant to offend or annoy and often done using salty and profane language.

While protecting people from harassment is a worthy goal, legislators cannot do so by criminalizing speech protected by the Constitution. All speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment against content-based regulation, subject only to specific historic exceptions.

I hate to point this out, but wouldn't certain cable or satellite TV movies or programs be vulnerable to the law as written? Or, is that okay because it's being done by a profit-making business?

Certain TV programs manage to offend a lot of folks without directly attempting to harass them...

I point out to you AGAIN this law already exists almost verbatim but is limited to telephonic communications. This is nothing but an attempt to expand it to written electronic communications.

In a telephone communication, the contact is one to one. But the proposed legislation does not limit the extension of the expansion to one to one communications.
[snip]

Did you just call Stuart names to humiliate?

Did you just call Stuart names to humiliate? I would be offended, but hey its alright, because we will soon have laws to stop your behavior. I am even offended by that remark about males being dumber than females. I hope we get a law here where I liver that is similar so I can get justice!

armed (and Snowy earlier) is correct that this is an amendment legislation to revise the current statutes (and is even codified that way).

[
We're riding into the digital age by the seat of our pants which is a blast on one hand but it does have it's drawbacks.

we need laws to define what is acceptable in the digital world to society & what isn't, like it or not.