Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Fark soon to be illegal in Arizona   (mediacoalition.org) divider line 233
    More: Asinine, Governor Jan Brewer, Senate Rules Committee  
•       •       •

24921 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Mar 2012 at 2:46 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



233 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-31 03:00:33 PM  
GAT_00 * * Smartest * * Funniest * [ ] Smartest [ ] Funniest 2012-03-31 02:30:11 PM (favorite) The entire state of Arizona can suck my hairy nutsack.
============================================================

Hahahahaha. I think this explains my position pretty much perfectly.
 
2012-03-31 03:01:03 PM  

DrippinBalls: This crap has about as much chance passing as I do growing a 14" boner. Not gonna happen.

/state of Arizona can kiss my pasty white ass


WHOOPS
passed already and is on the governor's desk
too bad that boner thing didnt work out for you
 
2012-03-31 03:01:05 PM  

Krazikarl: But annoy? How stupid do you have to be to think that you can create laws banning speech intended to annoy?


I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!

Also, wouldn't this ban ALL politicians from saying anything...ever?

/yes, I love ellipses...
 
2012-03-31 03:01:39 PM  
When these morons are passing this stuff, doesn't one of them ever say "hey guys, do we actually have any idea how we would enforce this?"

The Arizona state legislature:
sureiscute.com
 
2012-03-31 03:01:51 PM  

Trance750: And to all of the Conservatives who are saying how the Liberals want to take away your freedoms, this should shut you guys up... this is being done by one of your own,


Its ok when Republicans do it.
 
2012-03-31 03:02:06 PM  

Ed Willy: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x260]

Arizona, where this guy doesn't warrant better gun control laws

[www.searchengineoptimizationx.com image 311x311]

But this guy requires we SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING.


To be fair the first guy only affected a few lives. The second asshole has farked up the internet for the entire globe.
 
2012-03-31 03:02:21 PM  

Krazikarl: Somebody has to go and figure out how much money Arizona has wasted on passing stupid laws that will be insta struck down by the courts.

I mean yes, you can legally get rid of speech intended to terrify. But annoy? How stupid do you have to be to think that you can create laws banning speech intended to annoy?


well all religious speech terrifies me, so they have banned all religion in AZ??
NICE !!!
 
2012-03-31 03:02:26 PM  

Bunnyhat: Weaver95: if I read that correctly, it won't pass the first round federal appeals. the state is gonna waste an awful lot of money on a losing battle.

Even my internet lawyering degree says that will never hold up in court.


My internet annoying degree says I'm entitled to annoy everyone in Arizona forever now.
 
2012-03-31 03:03:07 PM  
img268.imageshack.us

Problem resolved.

/Sheriff Joe would fit right in with all those corrupts Mexican cops and politicians.
 
2012-03-31 03:03:24 PM  

Krazikarl: Somebody has to go and figure out how much money Arizona has wasted on passing stupid laws that will be insta struck down by the courts.

I mean yes, you can legally get rid of speech intended to terrify. But annoy? How stupid do you have to be to think that you can create laws banning speech intended to annoy?


Well I am annoyed by the Republicans... especially the self-righteous ones like Santorum. Can we make them illegal?
 
2012-03-31 03:03:54 PM  

vwarb: When these morons are passing this stuff, doesn't one of them ever say "hey guys, do we actually have any idea how we would enforce this?"

The Arizona state legislature:
[sureiscute.com image 565x418]


there was funding in the bill for enforcement, right? RIGHT??
LOL

how about a new requirement:
no more new laws until you do a better job enforcing the current laws??
:D
 
2012-03-31 03:04:11 PM  

Cataholic: Weaver95: if I read that correctly, it won't pass the first round federal appeals. the state is gonna waste an awful lot of money on a losing battle.

This bill only changed "telephone" to "any electronic or digital device." Somehow that deserves outrage...but it was OK when all that stuff was illegal to do over the just the telephone.


Using the telephone one-to-one is harassment. Publishing online for all to see is freedom of press.
 
2012-03-31 03:04:13 PM  

Krazikarl: Somebody has to go and figure out how much money Arizona has wasted on passing stupid laws that will be insta struck down by the courts.

I mean yes, you can legally get rid of speech intended to terrify. But annoy? How stupid do you have to be to think that you can create laws banning speech intended to annoy?


You have to be a conservative tired of being schooled by everyone else on a daily basis.
 
2012-03-31 03:04:25 PM  

eraser8: Bunnyhat: Weaver95: if I read that correctly, it won't pass the first round federal appeals. the state is gonna waste an awful lot of money on a losing battle.

Even my internet lawyering degree says that will never hold up in court.

I think we should all hold our uninformed opinions until someone with a real GED in law weighs in.


Depends on if the way this is written is due to an idiot reporter or an idiot lawmaker. I.E. if the actual wording of the real law is as vague about what constitutes harrasment as this article suggests then it is unconstitutional as hell.If the law specifically indicates that it is about direct communication (I.E. E-mail, texting, IM, etc) specifically threatening an individual or organization then it would be fine.
 
2012-03-31 03:06:01 PM  

Allen. The end.: Krazikarl: But annoy? How stupid do you have to be to think that you can create laws banning speech intended to annoy?

I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!

Also, wouldn't this ban ALL politicians from saying anything...ever?

/yes, I love ellipses...


...
 
2012-03-31 03:06:14 PM  

Weaver95: hubiestubert: No, but they can then complain bitterly about "activist judges" and still garner campaign donations. This is about scoring a "moral victory." It is about doing something, as opposed to doing something useful....

yeah...but it's not fooling anyone. this is a large waste of time and money that won't actually accomplish anything at all. well, unless the objective was to make the state of Arizona look foolish, in which case the plan is working very well indeed.


Arizona is all about surfaces. It likes to play the former Wild West town, with leather faced ranchers and hardened construction workers, but it has more golf courses per capita than LA. It is chock full of housing communities that like to pretend that they're not in the middle of the frippin' desert, and that the "river" hasn't slowed down to crawl and a trickle. It siphons off huge amounts of water to support this illusion. It tries to hide away the workers that it brought in specifically to build all these developments and gated communities, and all the varied mish mash of schools, and it has a Sheriff who used to let illegals pass by when they were building all this crap, and now he's busting them for being brown--even though an awful lot of the brown folks he busts, are citizens, and often just coming home with the milk. Gangs were tolerated when they were controlling the weed and coke, but when they got more cash and had delusions of competence, and actually looked at investing in the community, suddenly, they're a curse. Phoenix especially is all about appearances. It is about veneer. It is all just smoke and mirrors, and has about as many plastic surgeons and boob jobs as LA County.

Couple it with the brutal heat, and you have folks who don't even pay attention to the outside of buildings all that much. Even the surfaces are superfluous. It is an amazing demonstration of the facile leading the shallow...
 
2012-03-31 03:07:35 PM  

dogdaze: Mike_LowELL: Good. I am tired of exposing the Taxbongo Fraudministration's deepest and darkest foibles and, for all my exhaustive research, being called a "troll". The faster we can jail people for speaking out against conservatives, the better.

Teach a person to think, and you lose a Republican.


I blame religion.
 
2012-03-31 03:07:41 PM  
As if we needed any more proof that the AZ legislature functions chiefly to codify the cynical, paranoid nostalgia of bitter old people who pine for a Golden Age that never was. No wonder they tightened restrictions on who can attend and record the legislative sessions.

It won't survive judicial scrutiny, but that will be lost on its proponents, who will only think that the bill didn't go far enough.
 
2012-03-31 03:09:38 PM  

". It would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to "annoy," "offend," "harass" or "terrify," as well as certain sexual speech. "


Say that reminds me, how'd you get that kid so darn fast? Me and Dot went in to adopt on account a' somethin' went wrong with my semen, and they said we had to wait five years for a healthy white baby. I said, "Healthy white baby? Five years? What else you got?" Said they got two Koreans and a negra born with his heart on the outside. It's a crazy world.

 
2012-03-31 03:09:46 PM  

Weaver95: if I read that correctly, it won't pass the first round federal appeals. the state is gonna waste an awful lot of money on a losing battle.


republicans: reigning in wasteful government spending by proposing all sorts of insane, tax-wasting bullsh*t.
 
2012-03-31 03:10:10 PM  
They should just re-name 'Raising Arizona' to 'H.I. and the Baby.' There's no need to have that word in that title.
 
2012-03-31 03:10:47 PM  

culebra: As if we needed any more proof that the AZ legislature functions chiefly to codify the cynical, paranoid nostalgia of bitter old people who pine for a Golden Age that never was. No wonder they tightened restrictions on who can attend and record the legislative sessions.

It won't survive judicial scrutiny, but that will be lost on its proponents, who will only think that the bill didn't go far enough.


No. They'll just scream about "Activist judges!" and then stick their hands out to get paid for doing their trick. While there are a few idiots in the legislature, most of them are fairly shrewd in knowing how much to nick from the taxpayers, and then dare them to call them out on it.
 
2012-03-31 03:10:53 PM  
Can they arrest me if my flight has a layover in AZ?
 
2012-03-31 03:11:42 PM  

skinink: ". It would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to "annoy," "offend," "harass" or "terrify," as well as certain sexual speech. "
Say that reminds me, how'd you get that kid so darn fast? Me and Dot went in to adopt on account a' somethin' went wrong with my semen, and they said we had to wait five years for a healthy white baby. I said, "Healthy white baby? Five years? What else you got?" Said they got two Koreans and a negra born with his heart on the outside. It's a crazy world.


"Look what I almost stepped in!"
 
2012-03-31 03:11:58 PM  

iaazathot: Krazikarl: Somebody has to go and figure out how much money Arizona has wasted on passing stupid laws that will be insta struck down by the courts.

I mean yes, you can legally get rid of speech intended to terrify. But annoy? How stupid do you have to be to think that you can create laws banning speech intended to annoy?

You have to be a conservative tired of being schooled by everyone else on a daily basis.


So Los Angeles is conservative?

Los Angeles Passes Resolution Against 'Intolerable' Radio Speech (new window)
 
2012-03-31 03:13:48 PM  
From the bill (PDF in new window): Section 2 (C) 1. Course of Conduct...(b) Does not include constitutionally protected activity OR OTHER ACTIVITY AUTHORIZED BY LAW..."

If I was inclined to give Arizona the benefit of the doubt (which I'm not particularly), I might think they were trying to word Section 2 to reclassify cyber-bullying as stalking. Section 1 seems pretty ridiculous though, with the inclusion of "annoy", "offend", "lewd or profane language", "or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". It looks like, as well as taking aim at harassment and threats, they were aiming to make sexting/phone sex illegal.

I was thinking maybe you could have pollsters or telemarketers charged under the "peace, quiet and right of privacy" section, but it looks like they got around that by only having it apply to "anonymous" communications.
 
2012-03-31 03:14:43 PM  

Cataholic: but it was OK when all that stuff was illegal to do over the just the telephone.


I'm terrified i had to scroll this far down to find another user that actually read the article
 
2012-03-31 03:15:37 PM  
Wait, I thought we wanted the government to do something about cyber bullying.
farm6.staticflickr.com
 
2012-03-31 03:15:45 PM  
I say the government of Arizona is intending to annoy all the rest of us with their stupidity, regardless of the medium. So what does the new law say that we can do to shut them up, then?
 
2012-03-31 03:16:18 PM  
It's not "small government" when the Republicans do it, right?
 
2012-03-31 03:16:40 PM  
It would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to "annoy," "offend," "harass" or "terrify," as well as certain sexual speech. However, because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying.

How will this impact Rush Limbaugh? Is radio an electronic means to communicate? This should be fun.
 
2012-03-31 03:16:42 PM  

vwarb: When these morons are passing this stuff, doesn't one of them ever say "hey guys, do we actually have any idea how we would enforce this?"

The Arizona state legislature:
[sureiscute.com image 565x418]


I wonder why none of them asked, "Hey guys, won't this violate the 1st Amendment?"
 
2012-03-31 03:18:21 PM  
thethinkingvegan.com

Frowns upon your shenanigans.
 
2012-03-31 03:18:28 PM  
So, they're going to block Fox News websites in arizona?
 
2012-03-31 03:19:50 PM  
So, the other side of the 'hate' speech coin comes up. Too bad 'progressives' only care when the right threatens freedom of speech.

//yes, I'm sure someone got bullied, so fark the 1st Amendment
 
2012-03-31 03:20:43 PM  
FTFA: It would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to "annoy," "offend," "harass" or "terrify," as well as certain sexual speech.

You leave BIE alone!
 
2012-03-31 03:21:34 PM  

Digitalstrange: eraser8: Bunnyhat: Weaver95: if I read that correctly, it won't pass the first round federal appeals. the state is gonna waste an awful lot of money on a losing battle.

Even my internet lawyering degree says that will never hold up in court.

I think we should all hold our uninformed opinions until someone with a real GED in law weighs in.

Depends on if the way this is written is due to an idiot reporter or an idiot lawmaker. I.E. if the actual wording of the real law is as vague about what constitutes harrasment as this article suggests then it is unconstitutional as hell.If the law specifically indicates that it is about direct communication (I.E. E-mail, texting, IM, etc) specifically threatening an individual or organization then it would be fine.


My comment wasn't a serious one.
 
2012-03-31 03:21:51 PM  

Winston Smith '84: It would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to "annoy," "offend," "harass" or "terrify," as well as certain sexual speech. However, because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying.

How will this impact Rush Limbaugh? Is radio an electronic means to communicate? This should be fun.


If I'm reading it correctly, I think he could have been charged when he requested sex tapes from Sandra Fluke. The section about suggesting "any lewd and lascivious act" refers doing so via "any electronic or digital device".
 
2012-03-31 03:22:01 PM  

GilRuiz1: Wait, I thought we wanted the government to do something about cyber bullying.
[farm6.staticflickr.com image 240x320]


Cyber bulling is one thing, but what they're wanting to do is stifle free speech online. What happens when any dissenting opinion becomes illegal?
 
2012-03-31 03:22:29 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: So, the other side of the 'hate' speech coin comes up. Too bad 'progressives' only care when the right threatens freedom of speech.


What the hell are you talking about?
 
2012-03-31 03:22:40 PM  
Arizona is a helicopter state making sure it's poor snowflake citizens are not offended.
 
2012-03-31 03:22:50 PM  

Weaver95: Trance750: And to all of the Conservatives who are saying how the Liberals want to take away your freedoms, this should shut you guys up... this is being done by one of your own,

Its ok when Republicans do it.


Naturally.
 
2012-03-31 03:23:00 PM  

cman: Madam Governor, fark you for being such a coont. You are the worst kind of human there is on this planet. I hope that one day you get raped.


thesignalinthenoise.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-03-31 03:23:01 PM  

thetromboner: As an Arizonan, WHAT THE F*** IS WRONG WITH THIS STATE!?


I know,right? I am actually considering leaving the state. And I have spent half my life trying to get back here. The politicos here are ludicrous and yet we keep electing them.
 
2012-03-31 03:23:09 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Hobodeluxe: where's the list of who voted on this bill?

oh crap all of them but one voted for it.


How about "I voted for this bill because it's a bit of political theater to gain popularity points. Of course it's fundamentally illegal and will never have any negative effect against free speech because the courts will end it immediately."

I'm pretty sure many, if not most, of these legislators are aware of the idiotic nature of this law. The problem is, an environment of naive voters still gives popularity points for these absurd gestures.
 
2012-03-31 03:24:08 PM  
And the only NAY vote came from a Republican, Rep. Fillmore. Can't say I saw that coming.

The summary indicates it only applies to stalking and threatening. But if you read the long form(only 2 pages) it takes the existing law that was narrowly defined to telephones and expands it replacing "phone call" with "any electronic or digital device" and replaces "telephone call or calls" with "communication".

It also defines "any electronic or digital device" as "ANY WIRED OR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND MULTIMEDIA STORAGE DEVICE".

Then it goes on to define stalking with a grammatical clarification.

Someone blasted through it with search and replace and didn't read the final result.
 
2012-03-31 03:24:24 PM  
I'm all for it. All those political emails I get easily fall under this new bill.

/They didn't quite think this through
 
2012-03-31 03:24:29 PM  

cman: Madam Governor, fark you for being such a coont. You are the worst kind of human there is on this planet. I hope that one day you get raped.


To be fair to the Governor, she hasn't signed it.
 
2012-03-31 03:24:50 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: [img268.imageshack.us image 452x297]

Problem resolved.

/Sheriff Joe would fit right in with all those corrupts Mexican cops and politicians.


I think he's already in cahoots with the corrupt Mexican cops and politicians. Maybe in cahoots with the drug overlords. That probably explain how he can afford the million dollars to pay for the properties he has... There's a knock at my door BRB.
 
2012-03-31 03:25:15 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: So, the other side of the 'hate' speech coin comes up. Too bad 'progressives' only care when the right threatens freedom of speech.

//yes, I'm sure someone got bullied, so fark the 1st Amendment


You mean pretty much EVERYONE in this thread who is pointing at this and laughing are ALL Conservatives then? Is that what you really want to try to argue? Really?

This is something that both sides of the aisle can agree is gottverdammt stupid. And ultimately useless. Trying to make this an issue of sides, as opposed to an issue of "a waste of time and money" is idiotic.
 
Displayed 50 of 233 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report