dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1
share rss forum feed


Lagz
Premium
join:2000-09-03
The Rock

1 edit
reply to armed

Re: In our State's defense...

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.