Arizona Internet Censorship Bill So Ridiculous, Even The MPAA And RIAA Are Against It
from the do-politicians-even-read-these-things? dept
A new bill has passed through the Arizona state legislature that would allow for broad censorship of the internet. As with many such bills, this one is weakly "disguised" as an attempt to deal with online "bullying" and "stalking." However, as with many such attempts to outlaw "being a jerk" online, this one goes way, way too far. It says that it's unlawful to "annoy or offend" someone online, for example. The bill is so bad that even Media Coalition -- a group backed by the MPAA and the RIAA -- is arguing against it.The specifics of the bill take an existing law meant to stop harassing phone calls and applies it broadly to the internet. As Media Coalition points out, the bill:
... takes a law meant to address irritating phone calls and applies it to communication on web sites, blogs, listserves and other Internet communication. H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person.As Eugene Volokh notes in his own discussion of the bill, a telephone is a one-to-one device. The internet is many-to-many, and it makes for a very different situation when you're talking about content designed to annoy or offend:
Telephones are basically one-to-one devices, so a phone call that uses profane language to offend is likely meant only to offend the one recipient, rather than to persuade or inform anyone; but computers used to post Facebook messages or send Twitter messages or post blog items can offend some listeners while persuading and informing others.It still amazes me that politicians think that these are good ideas. They're grandstanding against "cyberbullying", of course, but if they're going to pass laws that have a major impact on the internet, can't they at least talk to someone who understands this stuff first?So, under the statute, posting a comment to a newspaper article — or a blog — saying that the article or post author is “fucking out of line” would be a crime: It’s said with intent to offend, it uses an electronic or digital device, and it uses what likely will be seen as profane language (see, e.g., City of Columbia Falls v. Bennett (Mont. 1991)). Likewise if a blog poster were to post the same in response to a commenter’s comment. Likewise if someone posts something in response to an e-mail on an e-mail-based discussion list, or in a chatroom, or wherever else. (Note that if “profane” is read to mean not vulgarly insulting, but instead religiously offensive, see City of Bellevue v. Lorang (Wash. 2000), then the statute would be unconstitutional as well.)
The same would be true if someone posts something lewd in one of these places in order to annoy or offend someone, for instance if he posts a comment on a police-run public discussion page that says something like “the chief of police can suck my dick,” to borrow subject matter from a prior Arizona telephone harassment case. And note that, given that case, the speech need not even be about one of the recipients, so long as it’s intended to annoy or offend one of the recipients.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arizona, censorship, cyberbullying
Companies: media coalition, mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patriots, man
The patriotic lawmakers in Arizona are just attempting to bring about the revolution that much faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patriots, man
And Clinton suggested that there should be a federal agency that monitors all internet postings for accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Patriots, man
That would solve the unemployment problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Patriots, man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Private prison's what? Don't leave us hanging! What is it that prisons have that is Arizona's primary industry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is funny...since according to wikipedia, it is Walmart, but you have your facts and the rest of the world has theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Give them some credit, you racist fuckhead, they think in terms of physical objects, unlike you where you value cat pictures and shitty out comments. I'm all in for freedom of internet, but you fucking dorks are fucking annoying, you can't even write a tolerable comment, go consult a fucking english teacher, you fucking immature brat. Hopefully, by talking into your langauge, you will be presauded. Either way, mdon't make shitty comments, and cite your source. fuckin. Persauded?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the cost?
I was thinking; has anyone tallied up the monetary cost of all these crap laws and the lawsuits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the cost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the cost?
i have sent messages to my state reps and senators as well as the governor urging her to veto the bill. however, it is hard to say how she will react. sometimes she couldn't find her ass with both hands, but occasionally she will rise up in moments of lucidity and veto these stupid bills. i guess it all depends on whether the bill's sponsors have something on her.
as mike was saying, the really sad part about this is that it modifies an existing law that addresses telephone communication. those laws might make some sense. but now that the bill has modified those laws it is entirely possible the the whole thing will be found unconstitutional. that would effectively remove the protections that the original law provided.
are there any nice blue states out there that i can move to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the cost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the cost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the cost?
Also, aren't the Repubs into LESS government intervention in our lives. This is not a prime example of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is about profits, good old boys, and agenda - what could be more important?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is about profits, good old boys, and agenda - what could be more important?"
Fuck you, you're in it for making worthless snarky comments, that you lack the vocal and social communication to say it in front of a physical being. To you, it's their view of profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's discriminatory, and not only annoys me but offends my sense of equality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's pretty much the answer to your own question. Something that seems to be quite common in politics is for a politician to make a "name" for themselves by tackling a controversial issue, try to force through some bad laws and then use the capital to further their own career. Whether the law would be effective or even counter-productive doesn't enter their minds if they can profit from it - those genuinely interested in the consequences would already have done their research.
This is neither something new nor something unique to American politics. I'm always reminded of UK politician David Alton, an utterly insufferable idiot whose reaction to the (false) tabloid link between Child's Play 3 and the Jamie Bulger murder case was to try and automatically ban any video rated 15 or over (US reader: imagine banning anything rated PG-13 and above). He failed, thankfully, but not long after trying to pull this crap he was granted a peerage.
I presume it's the same thing here... the exact cause being addressed changes, but the mindset of the career politician does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, fuck them, they need a daily dose of consequence from their usual act of putting up an image as a racist who spams on every tf2 game-chat, and uses it's own trollery to justify its action.
I swear, why is this article full of children comments? Take a hint from hackernews commentors. But don't over do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does that mean if I call the police they'll arrest Arizona's entire state legislature for annoying and offending me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That explain why there are so much shitty and vulgar comments, someone must've linked to a popular subreddit, and the redditors are going to celebrate and prove their toughness and rightneious by shitting out horrible comments that would be no different from male toddlers on steroids and a dictionary from southpark.
Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well shit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well shit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess the Arizona State Legislature blows ponies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I guess the Arizona State Legislature blows ponies
PEOPLE LIKE YOU SHOULD BE STRAPPED ONTO A SLAUGHTERING DEVICE THAT RUNS ON INFINITE POWER, WITH COUNTLESS OF SHARP BLADES THAT SKEWERS TIME, BLUNT FORCES THAT SHATTERS MATTER, AND FLAMES THAT SETS THE SOUL INTO THE INFERNO, IT WILL KILL YOU, IN THE SLOWEST MANNERS AS POSILBLE, AS SLOW AS TO FILL EVERY METRIC SECONDS THAT HUMANITY CAN NOT THINK OF BE CONCETRATE OF MIND-RENDERING AND BODY MUTILATING PAIN, AND THEN AT THE LAST SECOND WHERE YOU ARE TO BE TO RECIEVE YOUR ETERNAL PEACE DEATH IN THE REALM OF NOTHINGNESS, A LIFE SUPPORT WILL BE ATTACHED TO YOUR VESSEL, WHICH ALSO RUNS ON INFINITE POWER, WILL SUSPEND YOUR LIFESPAN TOWARDS THE IMMORTAL, YOU WILL RECIEVE AN ENDLESS LIFE OF DAMNATION, YOU WILL BEG WITH EVERY LIMBS REMOVE, AND EVERY ORIFACE RAZED, AND WHATEVER YOUR TORMENTED MIND CAN CONJURE, FOR DEATH, TO END IT ALL. NO. YOU WANT DEATH TO OTHERS? THEN BE A SLAVE FOR THIS MACHINE.
You want to be an annoying stupid piec of shithead, using the internet to "voice out" behind the computer, with many absurd comments, to which you acknowdlegde them?i.e: A pussy? Then stay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... takes a fucking law meant to fucking address fucking irritating phone calls and applies it to communication on fucking web sites, fucking blogs, fucking listserves and other fucking Internet communication. H.B. 25-fucking-49 is not fucking limited to a fucking one to one conversation between two fucking specific people. The fucking communication fucking does not need to fucking be repetitive or even fucking unwanted. There is no fucking requirement that the fucking recipient or fucking subject of the fucking speech fucking actually feel fucking offended, annoyed or fucking scared. Nor does the fucking legislation make fucking clear that the fucking communication fucking must be fucking intended to fucking offend or fucking annoy the reader, the fucking subject or even any fucking specific fucking person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I missing something here or does this outlaw every possible comunication?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What If
Seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oooookay....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oooookay....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waste
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Waste
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Multimedia, and other stupid terms.
And they really like "electronic" and "digital". I'm really struggling to think of why they care if the activity is done with something analog. Does this mean I can harass someone as long as I use 2 tin cans and a string, or carrier pigeons, or smoke signals?
And sometimes if they don't like what a word means, then instead of using some other word, or maybe using TWO words, they just say that word means something else. "'Immediate family member' means a spouse, parent, child or sibling or any other person who regularly resides in a person's household or resided in a person's household within the past six months." I never realized my college roommate was an immediate family member for 6 months after I graduated!
"A specific person's internet or wireless activity" - Now, I suppose it's possible that you could have a wireless system without Internet. But it's still stupid to phrase it this way. "Yes, your honor, I installed a keylogger on her computer. But it didn't monitor her Internet or wireless! And besides, her husband and children used the computer too, so it wasn't just a specific person!" "Well, you're probably guilty of something, but not under THIS law. Case dismissed!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are microphones, and cameras electronic devices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are microphones, and cameras electronic devices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*blushing*
However, this bill here makes me terribly embarrassed. After all the crap we just went through with SOPA ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *blushing*
Are you drunk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe JUST MAYBE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arizona -- let it secede already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arizona -- let it secede already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Arizona -- let it secede already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arizona -- let it secede already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arizona -- let it secede already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why I bet that under this law if I said the word goatse, someone who saw the original could be offended and I would be in legal trouble.
Now that's a goatse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ya ha de ha de ha
da ha de ha deedle doodle doy!
all day long I'd
diddle deedle yum-tum
if I was a goatse man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
wants to trolololo
that's a goatse!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
While the dumbasses made this law needs to chill, you need to fuckiung control yourself on the fucking internet, you fucking kid. The reason why "annoy or offend" was stated in the bill, shows that we, as people, have had enough of bypassing you childrens and your fucking constant need to spam the text-chat on every tf2 with racial slurs. It's not offensive, it's pure fucking annoying, it's lame shitty trollery by 4chan's standard, it merits you less respect to an actual racist because chances are you are not an actual racist, just a wannabe racist lying for "lols" or whatever you call it. "ignore it, it's the internet, I have an advance degree on the internet dumbass", that won't solve shit, sherlock. People with so little whit can just take a fucking shit on the comment section, and can be fueled with silent attention, or no attention at all, they run and never come back to this website, like some sort of prank that involves with egg/toiletpaper. And if I want to exert my natural right to free speech, I will drown you in my own steam: PULL YOUR OWN WEIGHT, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One-to-one is not the issue
Emails are one-to-one, but it still wouldn't make sense to apply these kinds of laws to email communications. Far more important than the one-to-one issue is the fact that phone calls tend to demand the callee's attention while emails from a particular sender are easily blocked or ignored by the recipient. It's easier to harass somebody with a series of nasty phone calls than with a series of nasty emails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One-to-one is not the issue
They are both the fucking same. You failed at defending your position as a troll, remind me to hire more bullies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One-to-one is not the issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously
Seriously, like there will be no one in Arizona who will oppose to this and do something like KILL the guy who agreed to make it law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh noes! Dey be comin forz meh.
God damn :( I feel bad for everyone in Arizona. You know something is very very wrong if the RIAA & MPAA object to it lol...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pull your own weight, you dumb shit. They need to not get offended easily and pass these laws, you need control yourself to not act like a fucking little shithead that can justify their actions because they are "trolls". This problem can be solved starting from the individual, so act up, and hopefully, shitheads like you will be minimized in the future, and because said individual would possess such traits, they will learn by themself not to get offended and go out to pass out these absurd laws. Then again, hypocrisy can be played, it's natural.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have got to be kidding me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have got to be kidding me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can't believe arizona
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
offending arizona for been retarded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: offending arizona for been retarded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: offending arizona for been retarded
Nearly 25% cursing? Check.
0% rational? Check.
Must be from Arizona.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Infinity +1. Bullies are to stupid to create anything.
And yet, here you are. Too stupid to attack with words, too weak to bully people yourself.
Nerds have already inherited everything, worm.
Bullies don't shape anything except for the future of college sports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHAT THE HELL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]