Posted on 04/05/2012 4:43:25 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
It doesn't take much for online comments to quickly get out of hand, and there are certain subjects that inevitably attract trolls ready to defend their stance or platform of choice. PC (Windows) versus Mac, AMD versus Intel, politics, religion, abortion, and other high octane subjects could all be fun to debate, but almost always quickly end up derailed by name calling and other Internet tough-guy nonsense. The solution? Most sites just drop the ban hammer if someone gets too far out of line, but the state of Arizona has written a bill that would essentially make it a crime to be a troll.
A bi-partisan bill would make it a criminal offense to post online comments that could be construed as "annoying" or "offensive," according to the Associated Press. Think about that for a second, and then go view your Facebook page or Twitter feed to see if any of your friends or family posted anything annoying.
Rep. Vic Williams defends the bill as a way to "protect people from one-on-one harassment." Supporters of the bill agree with Williams and are hoping for more favorable outcomes in court cases that involve digital stalking and harassment that have otherwise been dismissed in court because current laws lag behind advances in technology.
Needless to say, not everyone agrees.
"Speaking to annoy or offend is not a crime," David Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition, told AP.
Tucson Republican Rep. Tim Vogt said there will be updates to the bill to reflect certain concerns. He also points out that the bill isn't intended to stifle free speech, but as currently written, even talking smack about someone's sports team could land a commenter in hot water, if the bill were to pass.
Your mother was a hamster, and your father stank of elderberries.
I fart in your general direction.
Everyone in Arizona should get out as fast as possible!
Damn..., I’m going to prison for sure ....
Damn..., I’m going to prison for sure ....
Every election theres a proposition to increase the Az legislatures pay up from somewheres around 28K-
This year the NO vote will be a HELL NO vote!
In the name of government efficiency they should just collect customer lists from all the ISPs and go door to door with arrest warrants.
Who uses Linux?
Oh!
In other words...Ron Paul supporters.
This is so utterly and ridiculously unconstitutional that it should be thrown out of court in ten seconds flat. The Nazi march in Skokie clearly established that precedent and it would take a Supreme Court decision to overturn at least three decades of crystal-clear precedent to make this even remotely possible. Why do some Arizona legislators want to spend taxpayer money to litigate something that's virtually sure to fail?
GeronL is right — the First Amendment was designed to protect precisely this kind of offensive “hate speech.” The only way to prevent something like the Skokie march would be to use charges of treason, which might have been a good idea, but it's almost impossible to prove that somebody is committing treason without actual or imminent domestic armed insurrection or providing aid and comfort to a foreign power hostile to the United States. Today, we might be able to get away with banning some types of Islamofascism but even that would be difficult.
conservatism_IS_compassion has an interesting point about the Associated Press. I'm not sure the AP is going to be in existence in anything resembling its current form for many more years. The leftists seem to have failed with CurrentTV and Air America and similar models, but they are quickly becoming technically sophisticated with things like Huffington Post and Daily Kos and that's probably the future of liberal media. The Associated Press is so large that I suspect they'll find a way to remain in existence in some way, but probably just as one provider of content among many, or as a true news-share cooperative.
The First Amendment codifies rights of the people - the reference to “the freedom . . . of the press” does not in principle exclude any person, whether or not they own a press yet. In principle, you and I own presses, inasmuch as we both have computers with Internet access which enable us to make our opinions accessible to people worldwide. The development of that technology was promoted by the provision of the Constitution which provides (Article 1 Section 8) thatThe Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .and in that sense the technologies of telegraph, radio, TV, and computer are anticipated in the Constitution.To the extent that freedom to use such communication technologies needs to be limited, that is provided for in the Constitution, too - see Article V, Amendments.
It's amazing what happened to America, and so quickly.
The population changed. The percent of the population who are ignorant and easily controlled and don’t care if they are controlledexploded in the last 50 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
