Arizona Pushes Law to Make 'Annoying' Comments Illegal

by leavingwt 24 Replies latest social current

• 

  leavingwt

  Arizona Pushes Law to Make 'Annoying' Comments Illegal

  . . .

  What Horowitz is saying is that this law could be used as grounds to seek criminal charges against someone who posts a pushy, controversial, or offensive comment on a social networking-site like Facebook or Twitter.

  Arizona Republican Rep. Vic Williams, who helped sponsor the bill, believes that the law is necessary to protect victims from being harassed online or via text, according to the Associated Press.

  . . .

  http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57409617-93/arizona-pushes-law-to-make-annoying-comments-illegal/
• 

  wha happened?

  wow, our civil rights just continue to erode, don't they?
• 

  NewChapter

  LOL! Well THIS site would be history.
• 

  wha happened?

  oh boohoo, someone makes a disparaging remark about a politician, so now bad thoughts are illegal
• 

  NewChapter

  Hmmmm---I wonder if that would cover mean remarks toward liberals and Obama. I suspect exceptions will be made. I wonder if hand gestures will be covered? We could be witnessing the Arizona governor committing a crime here.

  NC
• 

  tec

  It doesn't actually look like that big of a deal. Just an e x tension of harassment or stalking done by telephone, to include electronic communication as well. We already consider cyber bullying to be a real form of bullying. I don't think its a big deal. The wording of the law probably just needs to be tightened up. I don't see how it could violate your free speech law, any more than a law against harrassment or stalking by phone can?

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  keyser soze

  If only I lived in Arizona. I could have all of my co-workers arrested.
• 

  dgp

  From the article:

  numerous states are working on legislation similar to what is being proposed in Arizona and more than 30 states already have anti-harassment and stalking laws that include electronic communication.

  "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."

  Nobody who intends to limit your free speech ever tells you he is doing it just because he wants to control you. The reason is always supposed to be "to protect you".

  It should be clear that, if you post something on a website (like this), and someone else comes and reads it, well, then you were not harassing that person, since he or she chose to read. Now, it could be very irritating, all right. So what?
• 

  leavingwt

  The only type of speech that needs 1st Amendment protection is UNPOPULAR speech.

  I think reasonable people can agree that staking/harassment are different than 'annoying' comments and offensive talk, etc.

  Such a law could be exploited to silence unpopular speech. Just my two cents.
• 

  ziddina

  I agree, Leaving WT...

  I am very concerned by some of the laws currently being passed in this country. If one were to deliberately lay down a framework for a theological dictatorship, one would see laws such as this one passed - as dgp said - "to 'protect' you".

  And then such laws would be turned against the people...