[Report Abuse]
[Login to Blog] up2sumptin's Blog
Trolling in AZ
nosy, opinionated, busy body
Last comment by LibertyDrum 3 years ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

Under a updated law, if someone is found guilty of trolling under Arizona House Bill 2549, they could face a $2500 fine and up to six months in jail. "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." Big Brother or a needed law to protect individuals on the internet. You decide.

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/04/04/dont-be-an-internet-troll-you-could-be-sent-to-jail/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=status+message&utm_campaign=naked+security


Latest Activity: Apr 04, 2012 at 9:45 AM


Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by up2sumptin
Send up2sumptin a Message
Report Abuse


Blog has been viewed (1246) times.

LibertyDrum commented on Wednesday, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:18 PM

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.

Iknowyou commented on Wednesday, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:30 PM

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.

Iknowyou commented on Wednesday, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:51 PM

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.

Iknowyou commented on Wednesday, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Every single time someone has gotten picked on or bullied on the internet, it was self warranted.

LibertyDrum commented on Wednesday, Apr 04, 2012 at 13:43 PM

"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.

Iknowyou commented on Wednesday, Apr 04, 2012 at 14:27 PM

If you wouldn't say it to someone's face then don't do it on the internet.

golfnut31316 commented on Wednesday, Apr 04, 2012 at 14:33 PM

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.

up2sumptin commented on Wednesday, Apr 04, 2012 at 16:50 PM

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?

LibertyDrum commented on Thursday, Apr 05, 2012 at 08:03 AM

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.

LibertyDrum commented on Thursday, Apr 05, 2012 at 08:15 AM

"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?"

LibertyDrum commented on Thursday, Apr 05, 2012 at 12:06 PM

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).

Iknowyou commented on Thursday, Apr 05, 2012 at 15:52 PM

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.

LibertyDrum commented on Friday, Apr 06, 2012 at 08:17 AM

Sounds VERY familiar.

LibertyDrum commented on Friday, Apr 06, 2012 at 20:38 PM

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.


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by up2sumptin
 
Vet Detained After Stopping Protest
April 19, 2015
A veteran was held in custody of the Valdosta State University after she took an American Flag from a group of protesters who were walking on it. No charges were filed and the flag was returned to the protesters. While I am a firm believer in freedom of speech, what ...
Read More »
 
Should There Be Literacy Test B4 Voting?
April 15, 2015
I know this is from Fox News but I thought it was an interesting viewpoint. Should there be some kind of testing done to insure that you are an informed voter? I hear a lot of concern about an uninformed vote being considered as good as an informed vote. I ...
Read More »
 
Al Sharpton Fires
March 12, 2015
During both political campaigns, two fires destroyed his financial records before he can comply with campaign requirements. This on top of questions about unpaid taxes. This first one occurred in 1997, just after he announced he would disclose financial records. Then in 2003, another fire. Though he did not announce ...
Read More »
 
Your'e Going to Heck!
January 28, 2015
Tonight, somebody was speeding through the neighborhood doing ninety to nothing. They hit a cute little pug and just kept going. We were in the house and we heard it so I know the driver had to. I know the owner should have had the little thing secured, but what ...
Read More »
 
Obama Interview
January 23, 2015
I am a fan of the Vlogbrothers (John and Hank Green). Not ashamed to say I am a nerdfighter (look it up :D ). He was interviewed today by three prominent vloggers, Bethany Mota, GloZell Green and Hank Green with questions submitted by their viewers. The topic range from Obamacare ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology