 StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2
 ·CenturyLink
| reply to AVD
Re: In our State's defense... said by AVD:why do we need government involved.
Because many believe that gummint is all things good and private industry is all things bad.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
|
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | I don't want to sound like a wingnut. But I draw the line somewhere. Government has no place regulating good behavior. |
|
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to AVD
said by AVD:said by Snowy:[
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.
why? why do we need government involved. Why doesn't the industry police itself? Silly me.
I totally forgot about The Internet Industry 
Whatever or whoever that is, I'd rather have challenged but accountable legislatures writing/enforcing the rules. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
1 edit | free speech isn't free if it is regulated. The internet does not change existing law, except for the fact that interstate commerce is not regulatable by the state anyway.
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--
The preceding posting is null and void in Arizona and any other jurisdiction where prohibited by law.
edit: spelling |
|
SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to StuartMW
said by StuartMW:said by AVD:why do we need government involved.
Because many believe that gummint is all things good and private industry is all things bad. OK, I'm stumped.
Just who is this private industry that can hold people responsible for their digital activity?
e.g., I just moved the $2.34 you had in your savings account to an offshore account I maintain.
Who ya gonna call. the friggin' ghost busters or something? |
|
| reply to Snowy
said by Snowy:said by JALevinworth : armed  (and Snowy earlier) is correct that this is an amendment legislation to revise the current statutes (and is even codified that way).
This document effectively illustrates that point, nice find. It was in the linked article in the OP, so not such a hot find.  The scribd I was familiar with being a repository of legal documents, posted unedited (by them). Just made a screen shot is all.
said by Snowy:On another level it also illustrates why this discussion exists.
Hard copy being edited by hand that deals with online issues.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "edit by hand", but the strike-outs and colored edits is how it's (currently) presented when legislation is an amendment to clearly show the changes. In my state they are posted the same way, as AZ does (same as the scribd copy):
»www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.as···n_ID=107
All of the legislative information on, "HB2549 electronic; digital devices; stalking; threatening" is here, btw:
»www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.a···n_ID=107
said by Snowy:[snip]
Anyone with a better suggestion for the wording of any digital world legislation I'm sure any States legislature would be interested in seeing it. I would be too, but I believe the answer for some is "none". OTOH, even if it's possible for there to be very precise edits that are focused exactly as the revised legislation intends and clearly defined, I wouldn't trust AZ to do it justice (considering their track record).
said by Snowy:ps Blackbird was the first in this thread to point out the incorporation of existing telephone statute. Correct. I missed that, so thanks for pointing that out.
-Jim |
|
SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by JALevinworth :I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "edit by hand"
Aah, at a glance it looked as if someone with pen in hand red lined a sheet of paper. |
|
| said by Snowy:said by JALevinworth :I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "edit by hand"
Aah, at a glance it looked as if someone with pen in hand red lined a sheet of paper. lol, I'm the wrong person for this (I'm visually disabled).. it ALL looks wAvY to me, lol. If anything, you might be seeing artifacts introduced by my image file uploaded to DSLR here. |
|
SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by JALevinworth : it ALL looks wAvY to me, lol.
OT but the red line does appear wavy as in done by hand but looking closer I believe it's actually straight as a nail.
It must be one of illusion things like the internet policing itself. |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
| reply to AVD
said by AVD:free speach isn't free if it is regulated. The internet does not change existing law, except for the fact that interstate commerce is not regulatable by the state anyway.
It seems like techno nerds are akin to geese... every morning its a brand new day.
The free speech amendment has limits and we have a myriad of laws that put limits on it from 100's of years of evolution in this area. The Supreme Court (even the new right wing political active Supremes) sees legitimate limits to free speech.
Your understanding of the interstate commerce provisions leaves a lot to be desired. Using your interpretation if I travel across a state line and commit murder the state cannot prosecute it?
Using a system that crosses state lines does not make all things involved in that use solely a federal matter. |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| reply to Snowy
said by Snowy:I'd rather have challenged but accountable legislatures writing/enforcing the rules.
Which makes my point exactly!
As does the post immediately above.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
 LagzPremium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to JALevinworth
said by JALevinworth :said by Frodo:said by armed: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. Unfortunately, that is not the case. armed (and Snowy earlier) is correct that this is an amendment legislation to revise the current statutes (and is even codified that way). The above shows the original with the amendments proposed. » www.scribd.com/doc/88008589/AZ-H···islaturesaid by Frodo: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]
True, your point about 1-to-1 communication however I see nothing in the original legislation that made 1-to-1 communication clear other than use the singular "a person" as the target (which I believe is your point) that would need clarifying for this purpose. -Jim The problem with this amendment is that you can not equate telephone calls with internet service and separate legislation should be written. Modern telephone service by definition is 1-to-1 communication. This amendment is trying to equate apples to oranges.
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football. |
|
 EGeezerGo CatsPremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:8 | reply to StuartMW
Apparently this knee-jerk feel-good legislation is being reviewed to try to fix constitutional issues;
... Horowitz's (David Horowitz of the Media Coalition, a legal association that represents businesses' First Amendment interests,) group sent a letter to Gov. Jan Brewer after the bill passed on March 29 urging her to veto it because it "plainly violates the First Amendment." He said Jon Stewart's comedy routines, Rush Limbaugh's radio show, and even angry online banter among fans of rival sports teams could face prosecution if an Arizona resident were offended by their profanity or lewdness.
Arizona lawmakers have stopped the bill from going to Brewer's desk for now and plan to alter it.
|
|
 MemphisPCGuyTaking Care BusinessPremium
join:2004-05-09
Memphis, TN | reply to TheMG
said by TheMG: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.
If you are going through all that to "bully" or "harass" someone on the internet ... this law was written for you.
I am assuming this law is to give law enforcement a way to charge you with a crime if, after a teenage suicide for example, they uncover emails, facebook entries etc showing a pattern of abuse and harassment that may have contributed.
--
Onsite Computer Support in Memphis
»www.memphispcguy.com |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| reply to EGeezer
said by EGeezer:...especially those who are concerned with individual rights and minimizing government intervention into public or private speech matters.
Well many don't care or have no problem with that as evidenced by many postings in this thread.
BTW it illustrates, to all, the great philosophical divide in the US today. No consensus is possible between the two views.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
| reply to Lagz
said by Lagz:The problem with this amendment is that you can not equate telephone calls with internet service and separate legislation should be written. Modern telephone service by definition is 1-to-1 communication. This amendment is trying to equate apples to oranges.
Agree, but I believe the intention is criminalize a 1-to-1 behavior. If looking at the stalking portion of the bill the behavior is defined as towards, "a particular person", but the "harassment" part of the bill uses, "a person" which leaves that open to interpretation. If not a particular person then it's open to any or all (for example). I agree that the internet may not be 1-to-1 but it also can be. Email, txt'ing, postings to someones personal social space, etc. That's not clear, and I agree is also right at the crust of the problem.
"Harassment" is also not defined as a repeated, and targeted offense but that may be elsewhere legally defined.
I think I get what they are going for, but the implementation and end result could be very well be not as designed (or as designed for the paranoid folks, not you rawhide).
-Jim |
|
LagzPremium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | reply to armed
said by armed:said by Lagz: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!
Your misunderstanding of how the law will might work is disconnected from the reality of the FULL text of the proposal. The law exists today... do you know of anyone who has gone to jail or been fined in Arizona because they in a minor fashion insulted someone on the phone? Are you really so lacking in compassion that you can't distinguish between constant bulling and day to day disagreements? The problem with this law and some others is that you can't leave it to guess work. Might work and will work are not things that I like to hear. I want clearly defined meanings, specifics, and intent.
This legislation is like broadening the scope of 1-1 communication to include public areas. The internet is public and you don't have to go there, unlike your phone. I have a right to speak in public even if my intent is to annoy, but not specifically you but anyone in general. People who talk on phones in public annoy others and they know it annoys others. So should we amend the bill to include public places, because essentially the internet is a public place?
You could possible equate Skype, email, or instant messages to telephone calls, but its irresponsible to include the internet as a whole. Telephone calls are received and thus the receiver has no escape. Online communication is retrieved and the retriever has a choice. I am not saying that laws should not exist to combat this problem. What I have been saying, and I believe others here, is that their should be separate legislation to address specifically the digital age of communication rather than trying to gloss over older legislation.
edit: I feel if laws like this that gloss over older laws covering phone calls will stifle honest debate online.
--
When somebody tells you nothing is impossible, ask him to dribble a football. |
|
 airwavzAlways the green wire
join:2011-09-11
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to Snowy
This is the same type of situation I've been arguing against for years, i.e. the "war on terrorism", the "war on drugs", etc. You CANNOT legislate moral behavior (or someone elses definition of morality) - it HAS NEVER worked and it WILL NEVER work! Sensitivity to others has to be learned, and it starts with the parents - and you sure as heck can't legislate good parenting (though I can wish). What causes this bad behavior - is it "the devil"? OK, let's see you write a law to control Satan... Is it our culture? Can you legislate all the cultural influences in our American (much less global) society? We have been dealing with the 'evils' of the world since we were running from Sabre-toothed tigers every time we left our caves to look for food!
Bad stuff exists, bad PEOPLE exist - a thousand bad laws will NOT change that. If the majority of our society believe this is wrong, then it's up to those people to stand together and force those doing the wrong to stop - but another law just waiting to be abused is NOT the answer. I've been bullied (as a child and as an adult) - I've been kicked in the head, I've had guns and knives pointed at me, I've had my home broken into while I was there, and on and on. I DO understand emotional abuse, but if it's written (online or otherwise) - STOP READING IT!! If it's verbal - STOP LISTENING (or paying attention)!! If your kids are being treated this way, teach them the same lessons, as they will certainly need these skills if they are to ever leave their homes and attempt to accomplish anything!! You have a personal choice - ignore it or put an end to it! How you achieve that is up to you (within certain legal limits), and abuse and harassment laws already exist. If the tiger is threatening you, RUN AWAY or KILL IT!!! It's your choice, but a new law to 'prohibit the threatening behavior of tigers' is not going to change the tiger's behavior.
We must quit expecting the government to fix it for us - strap on a set of brass ones, then get up off the couch and take a personal stand! If my Grandfathers could face down the whole German army to protect this country's freedom, can't we stand up to one bully?!? |
|
| reply to StuartMW
said by StuartMW:said by EGeezer:...especially those who are concerned with individual rights and minimizing government intervention into public or private speech matters.
Well many don't care or have no problem with that as evidenced by many postings in this thread. BTW it illustrates, to all, the great philosophical divide in the US today. No consensus is possible between the two views. To be fair, there is a third group of "one is not mutually exclusive of the other" which is more of the sense I get rather than only 2 opposing views that's all or nothing. That's fine if you feel it is all or nothing too. Personally, I tend to explore things from all sides before conclusion.
-Jim |
|
StuartMWWho Is John Galt?Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| reply to airwavz
BTW, slightly OT, I was raised to respect women. If a man hit a woman a number of men would take him to a back alley and beat the living shit out of him. When they were done they'd tell him not to do it again or else. I'm sure that breaks at least one law but it gets the job done.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow! |
|
