Customize

Arizona passes bill banning profanity online lolwut

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by anon walker, Apr 3, 2012.

  1. anon walker Moderator

    http://www.setyoufreenews.com/2012/04/02/arizona-passes-sweeping-internet-censorship-bill/

    What the FUCK, over?
  2. RightOn Member

    this is getting fucking ridiculous
    so sorry I meant fudging ridiculous
    what's next? banning words that are used instead of profanity?

    How about the word freakin' " still alllowed?
    "Oh fudge!" will that be banned too?
    The word Shoot! instead of shit? Will that soon be a gonner?
    or the saying "shut the front door" instead of STFU. (that saying really annoys me BTW)
    or how about the ever so famous "h-e double hocky sticks" instead of the word hell?
    People need to grow the fuck up
    /rant
  3. Anonymous Member

    Ok, time to learn Hungarian so we can still curse like sailors.

  4. Mutante Member

    spastic cunts
  5. Strixcoil Moderator

    ...I don't want to say "I need you to rub your hands against my bottom" for when I want to say "Fuck".

    We agree... And who on earth says "Shut the front door" instead of STFU? Sissies!

    "Don't let the door slap your ass on your way out" instead of GTFO is not that funny as well.
  6. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    Law killed by First Amendment and ACLU in 3...2...1...
    • Like Like x 4
  7. Zak McKracken Member

  8. Anonymous Member

    Don't know how this works in the US, but would it be within the realm of possible that they passed it, knowing it would be dismissed higher up the legislative chain? First thing that came to mind is that it could be a case where it's such a ridiculous bill that it might require more energy and effort to combat on a local level, whereas if passed the problem becomes someone else's.
  9. Mutante Member

    olOVg.png
    • Like Like x 2
  10. adhocrat Member

    It's called a trial balloon. They send it up to see if people shoot it down or salute it. If they shoot it down, it comes back a year later under a new name. If they accept, more power to the legislature and less to the people.
    Win win for the politicians, lose win for us poor citizens.
    • Like Like x 5
  11. Anonymous Member

    Fuck Arizona.
  12. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

  13. Herro Member

    Story seems to be more than a little sensationalistic. If you actually read the amended bill ( found here http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf ) it looks like this is a well intentioned move to give a much needed update to a previous law that essentially limited to telephone calls the legal definition of harassment with a communications device. If fact you can see that the majority of the changes to the bill just replace mentions of telephones with "any digital or electronic communications." New technologies became available and the laws needed to reflect those new technologies.

    Now, I do think that we can have some valid concerns becuase telephone calls, unlike other digital communications have to be targeted specifically at an individual ( or at least a specific phone number). Thing like blog posts are different because they do not have to be targeted. My guess is that the law would not withstand legal challenges if it were used to regulate "offensive" speech not targeted at an individual because it doesn't really meet the standards that constitute harassment and does not disturb the peace. Tennessee made almost identical changes to its stalking laws awhile ago.

    To say this law bans offensive speech online is pretty alarmist though. Then again what do you expect from a story from Infowars.
  14. Anonymous Member

    I think this law is a very good idea. The reason is that the law specifies not that the words themselves are illegal, but that it is illegal to use them in a way which causes harm to someone.

    It is in effect a law that can be used to prosecute cyber-bullies.

    Cyber bullying is a serious problem that can cause some vulnerable people psychological harm, even to the point of becoming suicidal and actually committing suicide. I think anyone who bullies someone online to the point of making them suffer deserves to be punished just as if they had physically assaulted the person.
  15. Anonymous Member

    Nanny state, nanny state. Smells like a goat.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. RightOn Member

    cyber bullies can still bully without any profanity what so ever
    Like the word loser for instance is very hurtful but not at all profane
    • Like Like x 1
  17. I find your post offensive and I think you deserve to be punished for trying to limit my freedom of speech.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Herro Member

    The law doesn't ban profanity per se, it criminalizes harassment.
  19. Anonymous Member

    WTF is up with Herro lately? Another personality change?
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Oh phuleeeeze!
  21. adhocrat Member

    A stunning retort. I'm speechless.
  22. Ok, try this on your paranoia, this bill was a smoke screen, an attention getter to allow other bills to get passed unnoticed!
  23. Herro Member

    It's probably just gas.
  24. I think it was offensive, too. Reported
  25. PresidentShaw Member

    Are we making overblown statements about things we have not looked into yet again?

    Yes other shaw, Yes we are. (Again)

    2pp5A.jpg
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Anonymous Member

    different mods.

    Herro takes on the personality of whoever logs into his account.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    It sort of like jello always being molded like the dish its in. Never cared for the stuff with weird fruit in it tho...
  28. cTp Member

    The bill sucks
  29. Strixcoil Moderator

    I'm totally wanting to know more, so meanwhile I will not even bother to get jumpy on it or anything.

    Though it's funny to believe that you will not be able to insult in the interwebz anymore. Probably everyone would start to act like a sir and say "CURSES!"
  30. Anonymous Member

    I'll just leave this here, to make sure no one feels left out...

  31. Anonymous Member

    That is not what the bill states. You will be able to curse all you like as long as you are not intending to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,

    Annoy and offend probably shouldn't be there but controlling cyberstalking and cyberbullying are worthy goals.
  32. Strixcoil Moderator

    Taking in mind everyone is pretty much a fucking pussy, any slight curse will annoy/offend/harass or terrify someone out there. So it really doesn't matter what it says...people love to do whatever they please with bills and laws, rite?

    Apart from that, I must agree that it can work to control cyberstalking/bullying.
  33. Herro Member

    Quick show of hands, how many people in this thread have actually looked at the revisions made to the bill instead of letting fucking INFOWARS (aka king moonbat Alex Jones' website) do their thinking for them?

    You want to know more? Read. The. Bill.

    http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf


    Thank you everyone in this thread for reminding me why I shouldn't treat you as competent adults.
  34. Dott Member

  35. Anonymous Member

    So, there are valid concerns. These require addressing. Sounds like this thread served its purpose, then. Thanks, Herro.

    Upon a quick reading of the bill, it looks like it's expanding the use of devices beyond just telephones to qualify as stalking/harassment. It doesn't seem to address the difference between directed communications (such as e-mail, tweets, Facebook postings) and general postings (forum posts, blogs, websites). Criticism of the bill should focus on this lack of clarity.

    Wording question here... does the final use of "to the person or property of any person" only cover "threaten[ing] to inflict physical harm", or does it also cover "use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act"?

    If not, it would seem to imply that using any electronic device to post anything obscene, lewd, profane, or generally sexual with no specific individual target in mind be comitting a crime, provided their intent can be proven to at least annoy or offend anybody. By that definition, wouldn't anybody posting in the Thunderdome be guilty of a crime in Arizona?
  36. Anonymous Member

    Typos. It's late here.
  37. Strixcoil Moderator

    Thanks, I will read it, Herro.

    Sorry, but I actually didn't bothered to read it last night.
    I was busy with something else, so sorry for understanding whatever I pleased from this thread. :(
    • Like Like x 1
  38. PresidentShaw Member

    THAT'S THE SPIRIT!
    I LIKE YOU!

    see kids? when you are provided with source material, you read it first and THEN you make your mind!
  39. PresidentShaw Member

    So, after reading it, they basically just replaced telephone by AN ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE.

    Nothing to panic about.
  40. Anonymous Member

    Obscenity, in the US, is supposed to be defined by the "community". Was there a referendum in Arizona about this, or just grandstanding by politicians?

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins