Arizona Looks to Outlaw Internet Trolling

[Mojo_Monkey]

Saw this topic scroll by this evening, was interested so I did some quick looking around and found some more info.

 

Being obnoxious on the Internet may soon cease to be a fundamental right in Arizona, where lawmakers approved a measure that effectively makes trolling illegal.

 

As Gizmodo reports , Arizona House Bill 2549 passed both legislative houses last week and awaits approval by Governor Jan Brewer. It states:

 

It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use 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.

 

Like so much other knee-jerk technology legislation, Arizona’s bill is noble at heart. Its goal is to stop cyber-bullying by outlawing threats and intimidation delivered via Internet.

 

But as Media Coalition–an organization that includes film and music industry trade groups–points out , the bill is far too broad, both in its language and its scope. By using vague terms like “annoy” and “offend,” the bill risks criminalizing standard Internet practice of acting like a jerk in the comments section of a blog post. Because the bill isn’t limited to one-on-one communication, all open communication on the Internet could be considered a Class 1 misdemeanor if someone deemed the language offensive.

 

“Government may criminalize speech that rises to the level of harassment and many states have laws that do so, but this legislation takes a law meant to address irritating phone calls and applies it to communication on web sites, blogs, listserves and other Internet communication,” Media Coalition wrote in a letter to Brewer last week.

 

Ultimately, a law this broad isn’t going to hold up in court. But if the governor signs off on the bill, it will end up wasting a lot of time as free speech defenders work to restore the right to act like a belligerent fool in online forums. No one likes a troll, but behaving like one needn’t be a crime.

 

 

 

Copied from: http://techland.time.com/2012/04/03/arizona-looks-to-outlaw-internet-trolling/

[obfuscator]

Thought this was funny:

 

http://twitter.com/#!/ChrisWarcraft/status/186908868306149378

 

Chris Kluwe

‏ @ChrisWarcraft

 

Based on the liberties granted by the First Amendment, wouldn't passing an anti-trolling bill be considered trolling? Your move, Arizona.

[champion]

Damn it, Arizona. Quit being stupid.

[ilovecuttingyews]

It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use 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.

Quite honestly, most of those actions are not really indicitive of a real troll. Trolling in its 'purest' sense is just posting a non-inflamitory comment in hopes of inciting an inflamitory response. Most 'trolls' on the internet these days are just rude and over agressive douches who think that posting stupid things is trolling. I do really think that this is -at face value- a good idea. It will help in instances of online bullying in particular. However, until we see the complete Bill, we can't really say for sure. SOPA at face value was positive too, until you get into the exact wording. Such is law... intent and execution are rarely on the same level.

[proton]

In my life I always knew something would be made to control the internet be it by making laws or the same community. After all, laws are made to control and try to give a good or balanced life to everyone. In the Internet there is no such laws or rules because the same structure of the internet didn't give you a way to abuse of them. However, as the technology is progressing a lot of things are possible now.

 

Still, jeez, Arizone has to start by making the dumbest move possible. Against trolling? People can barely tell what it means.

[Nobody]

WG is going to be illegal in Arizona

[Lord Paul]

Well I guess I should thank my lucky stars that I don't live in Arizona.

 

Unenforceable, vague stupid law is unenforceable and vague.

[Kirschen]

As nice as it would to have some legal work done against idiotic trolls, I see this as something to laugh at. It's vague, absurd, and overall won't work. Because of the broad wording, I bet more people would be arrested for being annoying on accident more often than those who do it on purpose. As for "offending", does that mean saying my opinion could get me arrested in Arizona because it offends or irritates someone in an online debate.

 

I bet people will forget this law because it would be too difficult to enforce, even if the wording was edited over to be articulate.

[Kimberly]

Do I get arrested for trolling before or after being pulled over and asked to verify my citizenship?

[Alg]

Do I get arrested for trolling before or after being pulled over and asked to verify my citizenship?

More importantly, how will they distinguish between people who are trolling and people who are just [wagon]s? :-k

[Kirschen]

Do I get arrested for trolling before or after being pulled over and asked to verify my citizenship?

More importantly, how will they distinguish between people who are trolling and people who are just [wagon]s? :-k

 

And how will they even track every instance of trolling from an IP address in Arizona? Yeah, this is just reeking of an immense failure when you start thinking on even grander scales.

[Riku3220]

I guess this can combat people who are stupid enough to troll using their real name.

[stevepole]

Do I get arrested for trolling before or after being pulled over and asked to verify my citizenship?

:thumbup:

 

I'm glad I don't have to deal with her stupidity anymore. There is so much more that she should be focused on, but she'll rather waste her time putting unconstitutional laws into effect.

[Sprint]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

[Furah]

More importantly, how will they distinguish between people who are trolling and people who are just [wagon]s? :-k

 

Under the wording of the law, they don't need to distinguish, they could go after both groups. If this law goes in to effect I'm going to abuse the hell out of it. As Arizona laws do not apply in Australia I can do what I like and best possible response for them is to go [bleep] themselves.

[demby123]

Honestly, if you can't handle the lawless place that is the internet, you shouldn't be allowed on. That sounds like a better bill.

 

Stop changing things just because you can't handle what's always been here.

[sees_all1]

I might have to avoid Arizona then... Us computer literate conservatives tend to inflame liberals whenever we're on the internet.

 

That, and apple sucks.

[Crocefisso]

Can't believe I didn't see this thread earlier. Though I'm not the most qualified person when it comes to computers and whatnot, I can't help but feel this is all rather futile.

[obfuscator]

It's like a law against bullying. Nice in principle, useless in actuality.

[Danqazmlp]

I'm always torn when it comes to topics of creating laws for the internet.

 

On the one hand, I do believe that eventually the internet does need some form of policing. It is incredibly dangerous to have no restrictions on information, and we have all seen the stupid things idiots can do when they have the ability to freely exchange and grab information (anonymous, London Riots etc). I also think that some of the things people do online and through the use of internet anonymity are disgusting, such as mass defacing of companies and websites, hacking personal information and completely ruining individual people's lives. If it were to be done through other means, they would very likely be arrested and charges brought against them, but because they cannot be realistically traced with our current systems, nothing can be done.

 

 

However, I also believe that some forms of anonymity are good, such as being able to do things which are not dangerous and breaking laws, but which may be socially shunned.

 

So in terms of this attempt on trolling, I believe it to be good spirited, but without much wider reform of the internet, it will never actually be a good thing.

[Furah]

I'm fine with the internet being lawless, I understand that any given moment I could come across something that should probably offend me. Arizona has had to change its mind due to being flamed over it.

[Albel]

Reaction to this bill:

 

There is no way to enforce this bill to the fulliest. A lot of 'trolling' will go through the cracks and it could not be enforced. And as stated by others and the media, it's unconstitutional and will not hold up in court.

[Assume Nothing]

I admire the sentiment, but the pragmatics of it makes this law laughable. Good luck enforcing it - perhaps this should be charted up when putting together policies next time; intentions are not results.

[Z_Berenice]

Here's a funny thought: wouldn't this bill be, in a way, a form of trolling? You can easily claim to be offended by the sheer stupidity of it, at least well enough to start wondering: not sure if trolling, or just extremely stupid (by our standards of course).

 

Funny thing, they'll prob be forced to choose and realize the extremely stupid option.

[Assume Nothing]

I think that was posted as part of a twitter feed, although this thread did get pruned recently so it may have disappeared. It's worded as outlawing internet trolling though, not trolling in general - so maybe not.