Whats also interesting is the the terms "annoy or offend" are never defined. Rather, like many other laws, they are left subjective, for obvious reasons.
I believe that's a very good idea and other states should follow.
Doesn't this make politicians illegal in Arizona? They commonly use electronic devices to sling mud at each other, especially around election time on TV.
And most people find those ADs extremely annoying.
If people would teach their kids to whip the crap out of bullies instead of buying into the "zero tolerance" policies that schools have for fighting this would be a non-issue.
"Yes - the onus should be on the one bringing the complaint to demonstrate that the comments are annoying or offensive. But to define the terms only gives ammunition to the potential offenders as to how to craft their "offensive" or "annoying" comments so as to elude responsibility for them. You have to leave those definitions open to interpretation in order to have some teeth in the law."
True, but how could the average person know where the line is drawn, if it's never drawn in the first place?
I would assume you'd like to know if your about to commit a crime BEFORE you do so, and not after the fact.
To answer the question, it's "big brother". More over sight by a government that is way out of control and too big.
I suppose if you spent the time and searched, there probably already laws on the books for this.
It is always better to play nice, both online and in the real world but does playing nice online really need to be regulated? I'd be more concern with playing nice in the real world than in the cyber world. Trolls, in my opinion, are generally harmless as long as you have a healthy since of self worth. There is nothing that says you must engage one. I find if ignored (REAALY IGNORED) then they will try and find another victim. They want the attention they are missing in real life and like children, bad attention is better than no attention at all. So except for the rare case, we are able to self police the trolls ourselves without government interference. And as I beleive the government over reaches into our private lifes already, why give them even more power. What is next? The thought police?
On a positive note, this isn't the first (or last) time we've seen this type of thing. In fact, this was anticipated by our Founders, hence why they created the judicial branch as a "check" on the legislative.
They can pass any kind of law they want, but if it’s against the Constitution, its void – or at least that was the intention.
Once someone "annoys" someone else, it will be taken to court and challenged on a first amendment basis.
"The law was obviously crafted to let the judges sort it out, but my hunch is that they will apply what THEY believe to be "common-sense" and "community" standards prior to any convictions."
Hence why there should be a clear definition as to what is/isn’t a breach in law.
Essentially, they are passing a law and saying "we can't EXACTLY say what act would be deviant of the law. However, the judge will let you know."
And by that, meaning you've already been accused, subpoenaed (possibly arrested), and placed in front a judge. In addition to your accusation being made public, taken from your place of employment, and any other inconvenience that goes along with court proceedings.
All because you're being accused of not having the sense that the law finds "common."
I'm not sure about everyone else, but I see ALOT of ways this can go wrong and possible used against people. Dare I say "witch hunt?"
Yes, your right. That's the wonderful thing about state laws. You can always leave.
But, as you know, we live in a society of guilt until proven innocent. So, all one needs to do is make the accusation (true or not), present the story publicly, and the damage is done (long before the verdict comes out).
What is the definition or meaning of trolling?
Back in my younger days when my friends and I were out looking for young ladies we called it trolling.
I was thinking about taking the 5th on this one but after thinking it over and reading Sebe's definition...."posting something inflammatory or outrageous with the intention to provoke..." I cannot in good conscience plead the 5th. I am sure it is some sort of character flaw on my part but alas, sometimes I AM a Troll.
Ask some of the others.
It'd be interesting for the psychoanalysis as to WHY someone does such a thing. I could probably make a few assumptions, but they would be just that - assumptions.
Yes you are right LD. My shrink could give you the goods on me but I would need to sign a release of medical information form for you. I've told HER everything from childhood up to now.
For the record...I CAN be bought! :) $$$
Let the bidding begin.
Opening bids for a complete psychoanalytical profile of one JimmyMack start at an unbelieveably bargain low of $1,000.00. Act now. Payment from the highest bidder tendered in Cash or Money Orders only, please.