Arizona Anti-Online Bullying Bill Stifles Free Speech, Says Critics

April 4, 2012 -

A new bipartisan bill wants to combat online bullying but is so poorly defined in its wording that it goes too far, according to some critics. The legislation is co-sponsored by Arizona State Reps. Ted Vogt and Vic Williams, both Republicans representing Tucson, along with strong support from House Minority Leader Chad Campbell (D-Phoenix), Assistant House Minority Leader Steve Farley (D-Tucson) and Rep. Terri Proud (R-Tucson).

The bill, which has already passed through Arizona’s legislature, is so broad in its definitions of online bullying that many feel it could stifle free speech online, particularly discussions related to political satire, sports trash-talking, and other types of communication. The bill takes Arizona’s existing law against annoying, offensive, harassing and threatening phone calls and broadens it to encompass anything online.

Arizona House Bill 2549 currently awaits the signature of Gov. Jan Brewer.

Trade group Media Coalition, which protects the First Amendment rights of content industries, has been campaigning against the bill throughout the process.

In a March 29 letter to Gov. Brewer it wrote "Bill Maher’s stand up routines and Jon Stewart’s nightly comedy program, Ann Coulter’s books criticizing liberals and Christopher Hitchens’ expressions of his disdain for religion, Stephen King’s novels or the Halloween films all could be subject to this legislation. Even common taunting about sports between rival fans done online is frequently meant to offend or annoy, and is often done using salty and profane language."

The language of the bill that bothers most critics can be found below:

"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. It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communications were received."

We will continue to follow this story as it develops.

Source: dmwmedia.com


Comments

Re: Arizona Anti-Online Bullying Bill Stifles Free Speech, ...

We all know that one way people can say about their opinions and perceptions about the government and the society is through social media. This can't really be avoided, but sometimes the words that they might say could be harsh or a kind of bully. So, at some point this bill is also an advantage for some but disadvantage also for others who just want to tell the world about what they really feel.

AE: No spam please.  I've removed your link twice now.  Do not re-add it.

Re: Arizona Anti-Online Bullying Bill Stifles Free Speech, ...

Whatever it is in the water that's poisoning the brains of legislators there, let's hope it stays there.

Re: Arizona Anti-Online Bullying Bill Stifles Free Speech, ...

This bill was so short-lived that I've seen reports that it was already killed off.

- Left4Dead Why are zombies always eating brains? I want to see zombies that eat toes for a living. Undead-related pun intended.

Re: Arizona Anti-Online Bullying Bill Stifles Free Speech, ...

Why do politicians have so much trouble understanding the First Amendment?  Seems like a pretty simple concept...  >.>

Re: Arizona Anti-Online Bullying Bill Stifles Free Speech, ...

"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to ..... , annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device ....."

Here's the problem right here. Intent to annoy or offend. I can deal with Terrify, Intimidate, Threaten or Harass. But Annoy or Offend? Little soft there.

Re: Arizona Anti-Online Bullying Bill Stifles Free Speech, ...

Re: Arizona Anti-Online Bullying Bill Stifles Free Speech, ...

The problem with this bill is in the language. With the existing laws regarding phone calls and letters, the communications targeted are one to one. Meaning they are from one person directed at one other person directly. With this new law, the targeted communications are many to many. Meaning thing like public statements on twitter and facebook are now covered, even though you are not directing your comments directly at the other person. 

Basically now, any comment that can be in anyway deemed directed at an individual is illegal whether you had malicious intent or not.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Have you visited a video game arcade in the last year?:
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician