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 03:25:49 PM  
www.framingthedialogue.com

But there's an exception where the person you're openly threatening is doing something illegal, right?
 
2012-03-31 03:25:50 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.


The bill did more than that. It broadened the scope of the language so that it includes any form of electronic speech, for example on the internet, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a direct threat or person to person. For instance, the way it is written, I could potentially be prosecuted for saying someone should kick the bill's author in the nuts with a dagger tipped boot.
 
2012-03-31 03:28:09 PM  
This makes me so damn proud to live in the land of the free that I am starting to tear up.
 
2012-03-31 03:28:24 PM  

Lipo


kick [a person] in the nuts with a dagger tipped boot.


Can we call that the Kleb-otomy?
 
2012-03-31 03:28:57 PM  

nvmac:

[i1020.photobucket.com image 333x400]


One of my favorite Simpson's lines. At least once a month I'm in a situation where I feel that way.
 
2012-03-31 03:29:01 PM  
If this becomes law I really hope someone finds a complaint saying that they are offended by the law's infringement of their 1st Amendment Right.
 
2012-03-31 03:29:23 PM  

eraser8: 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?


Should be obvious, the right is now stealing the left's "hate speech" tactics to try and intimidate and silence people and opinions they don't like.
 
2012-03-31 03:30:19 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: eraser8: 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?

Should be obvious, the right is now stealing the left's "hate speech" tactics to try and intimidate and silence people and opinions they don't like.


Again, what the hell are you talking about?

What "hate speech" tactics?
 
2012-03-31 03:30:35 PM  

Lipo: 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.

The bill did more than that. It broadened the scope of the language so that it includes any form of electronic speech, for example on the internet, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a direct threat or person to person. For instance, the way it is written, I could potentially be prosecuted for saying someone should kick the bill's author in the nuts with a dagger tipped boot.


t0.gstatic.com

Better hope Dalton doesn't see you first.
 
2012-03-31 03:31:42 PM  
i'm so glad i'm leaving in august.
 
2012-03-31 03:31:52 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: eraser8: 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?

Should be obvious, the right is now stealing the left's "hate speech" tactics to try and intimidate and silence people and opinions they don't like.


There's a difference between "hey, your opinion sucks and you should feel stupid for it" and being governmentally forbidden from saying it.
 
2012-03-31 03:33:37 PM  
I'm getting the odd feeling that this bill is being peddled as an anti-bullying bill.

Huh.

I can't find any news other than some blogs and official government websites.

This is odd.
 
2012-03-31 03:34:41 PM  

hubiestubert: 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...


Well that's a depressingly accurate assessment.
 
2012-03-31 03:35:34 PM  
How dare they try to take away my right to annoy. I would have nothing else to say and nothing to read if nobody else can write anything annoying. Thank you NRA. They will have to fight to take away my internets. Everybody grab all the guns, ammo and internets you can and lets take the fight to AZ.
 
2012-03-31 03:35:35 PM  
deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com

"Arizona smells funny!"
 
2012-03-31 03:36:51 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.


Doesn't matter. Elected officials can claim that they tried (even though they knew it would be shot down) and still get political points for it. That is all this is about.
 
2012-03-31 03:38:54 PM  
Why don't we prove our mettle and ban ignore lists and generally being an intolerant pussy?
 
2012-03-31 03:39:05 PM  
hint to arizona: if you want to stop being made fun of on the internet, quit doing such stupid things in your legislature.
 
2012-03-31 03:39:47 PM  

Rapmaster2000: t0.gstatic.com

Better hope Dalton doesn't see you first.


Right boot!
 
2012-03-31 03:40:26 PM  
And y'all talk aboutTexas??
 
2012-03-31 03:41:01 PM  

Cataholic: 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 isn't broadcasting. But I do see your point.
 
2012-03-31 03:42:50 PM  

Callous: 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.


"storage device"? It's illegal to store data, even if no one can see it?

Thank god it has to be a MULTIMEDIA storage device. So threatening audio alone can be stored, or video, just not audio AND video.
 
2012-03-31 03:44:02 PM  
Brought to you by the biggest enemy in the U.S. - The GOP.
 
2012-03-31 03:44:18 PM  
GOP water carriers defending even this on fark? Color me shocked.
 
2012-03-31 03:45:38 PM  

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


He probably would.

Keep in mind that Sheriff Arpaio represents just one county in the state. The areas around Tucson, Sedona and Flagstaff lean much more to the left than the metropolitan Phoenix area. Even then, much of Arpaio's support comes from the massive number of pensioners that reside in the area.

Want to see Arizona make a huge swing to the left? Shut off the power for a week in the middle of summer and let nature take her course. The seniors would be dropping like flies after a couple of days.
 
2012-03-31 03:45:57 PM  

eraser8: Ow! That was my feelings!: eraser8: 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?

Should be obvious, the right is now stealing the left's "hate speech" tactics to try and intimidate and silence people and opinions they don't like.

Again, what the hell are you talking about?

What "hate speech" tactics?


ftfbill: "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"

How does that not come across as basically a hate speech bill written by a far left dem to prevent 'bullying'? Not sure I understand what you don't understand.

//My basic point is that from my pov there is a wholelotta crying when the Repubs try to do something like this, but a whole lot less if a Dem tries to do basically the same thing. ymmv
 
2012-03-31 03:46:12 PM  
This is all part of the national conspiracy to take away our Constitutional rights. Here they are tackling the freedom of speech.
If you notice, there are several key states trying to pull some outrageous bullshiat on the public. Each one is taking the effort from a different point, but in the end, we'll lose everything.
 
2012-03-31 03:48:10 PM  

GAT_00: hubiestubert: GAT_00: The entire state of Arizona can suck my hairy nutsack.

To be entirely fair, there are indeed some talented gals in Maricopa alone, and that doesn't touch Pima even...

They can play with my pima too if they want.


Hey,now! Watch it. My uncle is Pima. Don't make him have to get a stepladder to punch you in the kneecap!
 
2012-03-31 03:48:48 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.


No, we still need the grand canyon. I propose the colorado river as the border all the way to Utah and we get Baja California in trade.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-03-31 03:49:07 PM  
It's 120 degrees there in the summer. GIVE ARIZONA A BREAK!
 
2012-03-31 03:49:26 PM  
Hey, Arizona!

I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you I'm not touching you, and so forth...
 
2012-03-31 03:49:57 PM  

inline4: 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


The lefty Farkers were too busy popping a hamstring in their rush to post "zomg Republicans!"
 
2012-03-31 03:50:15 PM  

Somacandra: Cataholic: 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 isn't broadcasting. But I do see your point.


Guess you never had one of them fancy 2400 baud modems.
 
2012-03-31 03:50:21 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,


Except that not a single Democrat voted against it and 3 even sponsored it. The only NAY vote was an R. I can't seem to find who actually wrote or introduced it.

If you look at my post above I willing to bet that they only read the summary.
 
2012-03-31 03:53:59 PM  
Seems lhis is broad enough to make a wide swath of AM talk radio technically illegal in the state.

But then, I'm a "glass is half full" kinda guy.
 
2012-03-31 03:57:24 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: How does that not come across as basically a hate speech bill written by a far left dem to prevent 'bullying'? Not sure I understand what you don't understand.

//My basic point is that from my pov there is a wholelotta crying when the Repubs try to do something like this, but a whole lot less if a Dem tries to do basically the same thing. ymmv


Okay, you're an idiot.

There are no far-left hate speech laws because hate speech -- at least in the abstract -- is protected expression. There ARE laws against targeted harassment; but, they've been around for years and years. It's been the law of the land since at least 1942 that "such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

The problem people see with this bill isn't that it outlaws something that would already be illegal if done over the telephone. The issue here is the bill makes no distinction between direct communications and broadcast communications.
 
2012-03-31 03:57:35 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-03-31 04:00:05 PM  

inline4: 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


You both need to re-read the article or perhaps read the other article that was posted.

Because they are applying it to the internet it removes the one on one component that is inherent on telephones. If I call you up on the phone and say your mom's a 'biatch' that is considered offensive under Arizona law.. now they want to take that and apply it to all parts of electronic communication including forums and cartoons. And to make matters worse.. you don't even have to find what someone says offensive.. if ANYONE finds it offensive then it is illegal under the new law.

I defy you to find a FARK thread that doesn't offend anyone.

Hence.. subby is right. And besides Fark you can add any internet site that allows public discussion to that list.
 
2012-03-31 04:01:28 PM  
Arizona can suck farts out of my ass.
 
2012-03-31 04:04:14 PM  
How will I stalk my favorite farker if there is no fark?
 
2012-03-31 04:04:32 PM  
Nubianrdly is officially my favorite filterpwn ever.
 
2012-03-31 04:05:31 PM  

Bunnyhat: 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.

Give a few hours and a pirated copy of Photoshop and I'll have Kinko's print me out a very realistic looking degree.


That's going to be harder than you realize.
 
2012-03-31 04:06:33 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.


I've got one and I assure you there's no chance in hell the thing becomes law. Ever. Not one part of it.
 
2012-03-31 04:09:06 PM  

jmr61: 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.

I've got one and I assure you there's no chance in hell the thing becomes law. Ever. Not one part of it.


As far as I know, there is only one Farker who has a GED in law.

Or, are people making the mistake of thinking I was serious with that comment?
 
2012-03-31 04:10:56 PM  

Methadone Girls: 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.

Well, that's not going to help anything.


You're correct but that doesn't stop me from wishing for it.
 
2012-03-31 04:11:27 PM  
The wargle of the liberal circlejerk that is Fark, brings a smile to my face.

Arizona has trolled -all- of you. Mwahahahaa.
 
2012-03-31 04:11:36 PM  

sweet-daddy-2: And y'all talk aboutTexas??


The only thing wrong with Texas is that it's filled with Texans.
/still better than Arizona
 
2012-03-31 04:12:08 PM  

mhuckins: How will I stalk my favorite farker if there is no fark?


The old fashioned George McFly way.
 
2012-03-31 04:13:10 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.


If only there were an article this thread was in reference to which contained links to the bill in its entirety...

/protip, the law doesn't say anything about direct communication
//interestingly enough, it does exempt "constitutionally protected activity"
 
2012-03-31 04:13:25 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.


Old analog radio, possibly not, but INTERNET radio? Bring it on!!!
 
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