3steps: 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.

Hah! Azcentral will definitely have to shut down. Ooh, the legislature too. I find the proposed bills on birth control very threatening.

Anarchangel: Nubianrdly is officially my favorite filterpwn ever.

You mean nubianrdly?

StoneColdAtheist: Anarchangel: Nubianrdly is officially my favorite filterpwn ever.

You mean nubianrdly?

LOL...yep!

kceaton:

Thank you. In my collection.

eraser8: 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.

Aw, you needed to insult me. I'm sure you feel better for it. Anyway, I have no idea nor do I care what little isolated bubble you live in, but I live in a state where the nuts on both sides are seriously farking nuts. I understand that in your world apparently only righties are trying to fark you over, but that is not the case in my world. Yes, left wing authoritarian douchebags who would trapple the first amendment to get what they want do exist, even if you don't want to admit it.

3steps: 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.

I don't need to re-read the article...I read the actual LAW. It says that you have to 1. Intend to offend ME (or any other particular victim). It does not apply if someone found the communication offensive if it was not intended for them specifically. In this regard the only difference now is that instead of calling me on the phone, you communicated the statement to me via the internet and as such others could see it as well. 2. Not only did you have to intend that I be offended, but the communication had to be profane, lewd, suggest a lascivious act, or threaten to inflict harm to my person or property. My guess is, all this stuff is already illegal in AZ anyway if you did it to my face (and said illegality would probably pass federal constitutional muster). Posting it on my facebook page or directing it at me in a FARK thread is no different in terms of the First Amendment...it's still speech...it's still communicated to the intended "victim."

ps...chances are good that the prior versions mentioned it in terms of "wire communications" (i.e. telegraph AND telephone). Chances are similarly good the prior statute applied to DSL communications and the whole internet thing isn't really new.

It would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to "annoy,"

Soon to be illegal in Arizona

It would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to "annoy,"

Intent. How does that work?

Mock26: 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?"

Arizona: where the constitution goes when it wants to relax and party

eraser8: Ow! That was my feelings!: Aw, you needed to insult me.

I didn't consider that an insult. I considered it a fact. I can't help if you were insulted by it.

Ow! That was my feelings!: Yes, left wing authoritarian douchebags who would trapple the first amendment to get what they want do exist, even if you don't want to admit it.

Can you cite any left wing authoritarian hate speech laws?

Outside of campus speech codes, no, because they are illegal and never get very far. So, yeah, the fact this pos bill made it to the governor's desk is a greater indictment of the Repubs, in this instance.

I guess all my arguing with the "hate speech isn't free speech" crowd, all of whom seem to be very far left, has skewed my pov.

//hate speech IS free speech.

Trance750: 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.

That's probably not what they want to do, but they were too lazy to write a specific law, just ran a search and replace on one they already had and were too stupid to realize what they had done, which is evident because of the lack of dissenting votes.

There is actually a potential up-side. The anti-immigration law is hate speech. Jan Bruhaha signed it. It's online. She should be the first person arrested if this law passes.

What happens when any dissenting opinion becomes illegal?

Arpaio starts house-to-house searches and arrests everyone in the state.

Makh: violentsalvation: I'll never give up my right to troll.

I'm never gonna give you up.

I'm never gonna let you down.

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...

Never touch Pima. Not even on a dare.

ciberido: Makh: violentsalvation: I'll never give up my right to troll.

I'm never gonna give you up.

I'm never gonna let you down.

I'm never gonna run around or desert you

MrCheeks: They got my letters?

/fark AZ

Unfortunately, this really could just be a massive case of butthurt.

Oznog 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?

Why is that motherfarker wearing general's stars on his collar!?

CthulhuCalling: It's not "small government" when the Republicans do it, right?

THIS

I think if you look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary it will say "See GOP"

/not mine, but awesome anyway.

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.

It is broadcasting .............now!

SubBass49: [mexfiles.files.wordpress.com image 320x427]

/not mine, but awesome anyway.

How come only the ghost seems to be casting a shadow?

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.

Too bad you're too partisan to realize how stupid that sounds.

The fun part is that as much as everyone biatched about Pelossi (and rightly so), Gov.Brewer is the exact same person - just in conservative clothes.

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,

They are ALL trying to do it. This isn't a partisan issue folks, they ALL suck. Dems and Reps both.

WOW. That's a bad bill.


It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a telephone ANY ELECTRONIC OR, DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls COMMUNICATIONS were received.

AcademGreen: WOW. That's a bad bill.


It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a telephone ANY ELECTRONIC OR, DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls COMMUNICATIONS were received.

There goes my weekend of mocking people with a morse toaster. : /

ecmoRandomNumbers: There are some people who live here through no fault of our own. :(

My humblest apologies, no offense meant.

I don't care if they go Warp 9 Retarded. Feel free Zonatards.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound:
/protip, the law doesn't say anything about direct communication
//interestingly enough, it does exempt "constitutionally protected activity"

Only exempts it from part 2 as far as I can tell. The problems look like the first part, not the part about spying on someone else's Internet or tracking them with GPS.

Ow! That was my feelings!: eraser8: Ow! That was my feelings!: Aw, you needed to insult me.

I didn't consider that an insult. I considered it a fact. I can't help if you were insulted by it.

Ow! That was my feelings!: Yes, left wing authoritarian douchebags who would trapple the first amendment to get what they want do exist, even if you don't want to admit it.

Can you cite any left wing authoritarian hate speech laws?

Outside of campus speech codes, no, because they are illegal and never get very far. So, yeah, the fact this pos bill made it to the governor's desk is a greater indictment of the Repubs, in this instance.

I guess all my arguing with the "hate speech isn't free speech" crowd, all of whom seem to be very far left, has skewed my pov.

//hate speech IS free speech.

So in other words, you are talking shiat about things that don't exist, in order to whale the crap out of a straw man.
Gotcha.
Both sides are bad.
So vote Republican.

malaktaus: 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

And you're stuck in the middle! LOL

What the fark is wrong with people? Don't they see that THIS is government control, not health care, not units, etc...

Shouldn't we be mature enough to not send offensive material to representatives, or hey better yet, don't they have to be mature enough to not take offense at it?

This is the reason why I left the country, everybody is giving away their rights bit by bit.

jso2897: Ow! That was my feelings!: eraser8: Ow! That was my feelings!: Aw, you needed to insult me.

I didn't consider that an insult. I considered it a fact. I can't help if you were insulted by it.

Ow! That was my feelings!: Yes, left wing authoritarian douchebags who would trapple the first amendment to get what they want do exist, even if you don't want to admit it.

Can you cite any left wing authoritarian hate speech laws?

Outside of campus speech codes, no, because they are illegal and never get very far. So, yeah, the fact this pos bill made it to the governor's desk is a greater indictment of the Repubs, in this instance.

I guess all my arguing with the "hate speech isn't free speech" crowd, all of whom seem to be very far left, has skewed my pov.

//hate speech IS free speech.

So in other words, you are talking shiat about things that don't exist, in order to whale the crap out of a straw man.
Gotcha.
Both sides are bad.
So vote Republican.

The fact that many self-proclaimed progressives both on fark and in my life fail to see their support for hate speech laws "Hate speech isn't free speech", as a serious threat to freedom of speech, is appalling. Then a bill like this comes up, which basically codifies a lot of what they want, and all of a sudden it is either silence, denial, or denunciation. But how many of those screaming would be ok with this bill if was a democrat, anti-bullying bill? I fear it would be a significant number.

If someone supports the idea that a "hate speech" exemption should be carved from the 1st amendment, then they are part of the problem, regardless of political affiliation.