Internet Trolls Face Jail in Arizona
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just because you aren't an American doesn't mean you know any less about the limitations on freedom of speech than most Americans, including educated ones. Most Americans don't understand what freedom of speech really means unless they've taken a class on Constitutional law in college or law school. There are a number of restrictions on freedom of speech in the US. For example, obscenity, "fighting words", and defamation are types of unprotected speech.VonKlaw said:
With that said, this particular law is overbroad and vague so would quickly be stricken as unconstitutional if Arizona tried prosecuting anybody for violation of it.
This was proposed not long ago, and shouted down for being the very stupid idea that it is.aegix drakan said:
Oh, there are quite a few asshats that are in legislation here, take your pick, and if the governor does sign it, she will be the biggest one.Spartanmk1 said:
I will be shocked if it's signed and I can only see a shit storm a comin'.
I guess I just don't get what the bill is for. It's immensely vague and incredibly unspecific. I IMAGINE the idea behind it is to bring legal recourse into stuff like facebook harassment where people stalk and harass people or something.
I really dislike what online gaming has devolved into, and I don't really think "it's part of the game, man" is a good excuse for bad manners. Back in the very early days I recall people generally being pretty polite online. Around the counterstrike time is when things started to slip.
However, no court of law is going to waste it's time because some guy in league of legends called another player a "noob scrub" or some such. I mean imagine this scenario if a European called someone a noob scrub:
1) The player would need record the other player called them this
2) Upon proof, the police would need to get a warrant to get Riot Games to release the IP of the player.
3) The police would need to look up the IP and find out it's in Eruope
4) The police would directly contact the ISP in Europe or get a federal or even national representative to contact them, asking them to release details.
5) The ISP would then need to bring this up to a governmental level as they owe no allegance to a foreign government.
6) The player would then be found, contacted, possibly even extradited all so he could pay a $2500 fine.
The COST of finding this person would far outweigh the payment or the crime itself.
I really dislike what online gaming has devolved into, and I don't really think "it's part of the game, man" is a good excuse for bad manners. Back in the very early days I recall people generally being pretty polite online. Around the counterstrike time is when things started to slip.
However, no court of law is going to waste it's time because some guy in league of legends called another player a "noob scrub" or some such. I mean imagine this scenario if a European called someone a noob scrub:
1) The player would need record the other player called them this
2) Upon proof, the police would need to get a warrant to get Riot Games to release the IP of the player.
3) The police would need to look up the IP and find out it's in Eruope
4) The police would directly contact the ISP in Europe or get a federal or even national representative to contact them, asking them to release details.
5) The ISP would then need to bring this up to a governmental level as they owe no allegance to a foreign government.
6) The player would then be found, contacted, possibly even extradited all so he could pay a $2500 fine.
The COST of finding this person would far outweigh the payment or the crime itself.
"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend..."
Cut out annoy and offend and it wouldn't be too bad. They claim it's to address cyber bullying in which case those first four things should be enough to encompass what they're looking for. It's bullying when the annoying and offending stuff get to harassment levels.
Cut out annoy and offend and it wouldn't be too bad. They claim it's to address cyber bullying in which case those first four things should be enough to encompass what they're looking for. It's bullying when the annoying and offending stuff get to harassment levels.
So... we're sure we want to keep Arizona?
Actually, I like a little bit of the bill, specifically these parts:
... with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass ... suggest any lewd or lascivious act ... threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.
would be illegal and punishable.
Actually, I like a little bit of the bill, specifically these parts:
... with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass ... suggest any lewd or lascivious act ... threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.
would be illegal and punishable.
No, not even close. All that the freedom of speech means is that the government cannot arrest you for speaking against the government. Nothing more, nothing less.VonKlaw said:
Isn't this rather retarded?
I can write "I LIKE CHOCOLATE COOKIES!!!" and it will annoy someone, offend someone else, the extra exclamation marks will threaten someone and the caps lock will intimidate someone because I'm shouting.
This shit is to broad even for the fucked up states of America.
Unlike your phone ringing, you can ignore posts on the internet. Also, couldn't I now sue Arizone because this bill offends, annoys, terrifies, intimidates, threatens and harasses me?
Could this then also be applied to any identified terrorists?I mean if you want campaigns of hate /harassment etc. look no further 