

Its now Illegal In Arizona to be Offensive on the Internet. - spoiledtechie
http://cbldf.org/homepage/arizona-legislature-passes-sweeping-electronic-speech-censorship-bill/

======
greenyoda
The law doesn't take effect unless it's signed by Governor Brewer, who would
hopefully have the sense to realize that it would probably be struck down by
the first court that weighed its constitutionality. Media Coalition, a First
Amendment activist group, has urged her not to sign the legislation into law.
A link to their letter, and more information about this law, can be found on
this page:

[http://mediacoalition.org/Arizona-House-
Bill-2549-Censoring-...](http://mediacoalition.org/Arizona-House-
Bill-2549-Censoring-Electronic-Speech)

~~~
kls
As usual this could be a good law, but it is so poorly written that it can be
used for anything. The stated intent of the law is to criminalize the act of
following someone around online and continually harassing them. Which I
personally view as a form of stalking that should be criminal, there is a huge
difference between saying your piece and continually harassing a person via a
communications medium. One is an exercise in the free speech the other is the
victimization of a person. As a rule of thumb a persons rights ends when it
victimizes another person.

The problem with this law and many others like it is that they do not codify
at what point does it stop being speech and begin being harassment, they do
this to give law enforcement leeway but it is leeway that they neither need,
nor have they shown any responsibility in utilizing. If they are going to
write these laws the need to codify at which point one steps past the law. Is
a person that rebuts another person on Facebook every time they post in
violations of it, if they add a nasty comment at the end? how many infractions
have to happen before it crosses the line? As it sits now, it looks like it
could be as little as two. The should have a provision that it has to be
unprovoked as well, we have all seen flamefest in which one party would love
to be able to have the other party arrested, but they reality is they are just
as guilty.

------
Zimahl
"... Christopher Hitchens’ expressing his disdain for religion ..."

First, Hitchens' arguments clearly aren't 'intended to offend, annoy or scare'
and it's frankly a little disheartening lumping him in with Rush Limbaugh or
Ann Coulter, two people who spew inflammatory rhetoric with the only goal
being to gain listeners and page views.

Second, Hitchens' isn't going to be arrested any time soon.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Because he's dead.

~~~
Zimahl
Yes, that was to implication of him not going to be arrested 'anytime soon'.

------
read_wharf
"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.”

Dear Arizona legislative twit, I write to you via my electronic digital device
to annoy and offend you by calling attention to the brain dead legislation you
have sponsored. You may look forward to weekly harassing emails on this and
other subjects. This is meant to terrify you regarding your re-election
prospects. You may now take your legislation and do you know what with it, you
know where; please interpret that in the most obscene, lewd and profane way
available to your limited imagination.

------
cabalamat
If I find this law offensive, can I have the people who wrote it put in
prison?

------
Navarr
This law is offense, and on the internet.

Your move, Arizona.

