Arizona legislature passes bill to ban trolling (what?)

[Bane of Ezekiel]

Heimdalr

N3bu

And if you don't live in Arizona?

Trololol.

They'll demand extradition. wink

Since when was Arizona a country? gonk

I feel like this a law that, even if passed, would be completely unenforceable and thus, never used.

[Raxa]

Ban

Mmm, Gaia is covered under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. There's no liability involved in distribution or publication under federal law, which arguably ought to preempt state law in these circumstances, and the state law doesn't seem geared towards distributors in any case, but the individuals who originate the messages.

In general, there seems to a good challenge for the law being overbroad, as it certainly encompasses speech that is constitutionally protected. I guess the question is whether this might be a reasonable restriction on the manner of speech, but given the implicit federal goal of keeping content on the Internet largely unregulated, I'm not sure how well that'd fly.

Probably won't fly, as you said, law is too broad, out of all rights, our first amendment right is probably the one the courts protect most zealously.

Yes, I am aware as a distributor Gaia probably isn't liable, but it means the site would probably have to deal with subpoenas for information, records, etc. Paperwork I'm sure the admins of the site would rather not have.

I mostly just brought this up as I thought the absurdity(or lack thereof) of it was worth a few chuckles for my chums here in ED-P; and as a decent discussion point for censorship of internet speech, as it surely will be the next big area of courtroom fights in the coming decades; and as this law proves, our legislators are pretty unprepared to govern the new frontier efficiently or sensibly.

edit: My main point against it, to dress Liz's point (below mine) that this law is generally within some reason, is that it insufficiently adapts the law to electronic communications. Unlike a phone, statements on the internet that are not directed at particular individuals, anonymity is much more prevalent, while an internet message board is more public.

It should also be noted that phone calls are more easily tied to specific individuals, while it is not so easily done with computers.

[Less Than Liz]

For my original post, I was incorrect on using "aggravated harassment"; it was on my mind at the time. This amendment just expands the scope of harassment over the phone to harassment over the computer and similar media devices. Same argument applies because of what "electronic means" did not cover (as opposed to "electronic devices" ), just that now it isn't limited to people against whom orders of protection or injunctions have been ordered.

As for criminal jurisdiction, I'm really not well-versed in it, having focused my studies primarily in civil areas. That said, I'm not sure how laughable it is. My experience has been that lawmakers are pretty good at anticipating these jurisdictional hurdles (nevermind the occasions on which FFCC is triggered.) The only thing holding me back is that the Internet is a big "who knows."

[Cat of Ice]

19 yr old Political Geek

What Danguy said. Love to see them try and enforce it.

I feel I'm obliged to do this.

HEY ARIZONA!

Yea, imad!1!!11

Now that that's out of the way, I would like to point out this.

Quote:

annoy or offend

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure annoying and offensive are subjective. I'm not sure how they would decide what counts as annoying or offending. I also like how it is just electronic devices, so saying something offensive in person isn't as bad somehow.

[GunsmithKitten]

WOW, Arizona....can you give us a better definition of poorly and broadly defined legislation please?

[azulmagia]

This bill is so bad that I would like to find the ******** behind it, and take a huge cleveland steamer of a dump on all of their faces whilst simultaneously keying their cars.

[Gakre]

I like the following part of the law:

Quote:

Any offense committed by use of an electronic or digital device as set forth in this section is deemed to have been committed at either the place where the communications originated or at the place where the communications were received.

The world is no longer safe.

[Ban]

Raxa

Yes, I am aware as a distributor Gaia probably isn't liable, but it means the site would probably have to deal with subpoenas for information, records, etc. Paperwork I'm sure the admins of the site would rather not have.

Not sure that reporting everybody would lessen the paperwork. Easiest thing would be to IP ban everyone from that state. Which would suck, but there you go. States that want a regulated Internet are going to get less Internet.

[Less Than Liz]

I really don't think this is in the running for stupidest law ever.

This proposal basically takes its telecommunications harassment statute and replaces "telephone" with "electronic devices." This is problematic for two reasons: (1) it is (obviously) not tailored to the difference between internet communications and telephonic communications, and; (2) the telecommunications statute has already come under fire for being unconstitutionally vague, being upheld in some applications but not in others.

I see what the legislature is doing, and I think the intent is laudable. It's silly to criminalize behavior and then give the state no cause of action against people who who do the very same thing through another medium. They're basically trying to make a new amendment to an old law to remedy a new manifestation of an old problem. Writing laws and anticipating unintended consequences can frankly be a bit hard. At this point, it's a matter of means that needs to be addressed, primarily by narrowing the scope of behavior it captures - perhaps by omitting "annoy" and "offend," or by adding a section that states the forbidden behavior needs to be addressed to a specific person, since a lot of internet communication has wide audiences (e.g., message boards, Facebook.) But the goal seems fair to me. As I said earlier, I don't see why harassment** should be criminalized but balk at trying to cover the very same behavior over the Internet simply because the medium is different. The 'net is largely unregulated and for very good reasons, but that doesn't mean it's entirely Mad Max and that you should be without recourse should, for example, your pissed off ex start to send you credible threats through e-mail.

What I would do is look to states that have likewise attempted to catch up to technology. Some states, such as Massachusetts, already have statutes criminalizing harassment that includes internet communications. There are a few distinctions, namely that they limit harassment to "willfully and maliciously [engaging] in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress." So, no "annoy," "offend," etc. and it's directed at a specific person.* My point being that AZ is basically one in a trend of states attempting to catch up to technology and that their biggest fault is making the statute too broad, which can and probably will be tweaked down the road, especially if it ends up clogging its courts with frivolous offensive comic scans suits instead of the sort of behavior the legislature actually intended to capture.

It should go without saying that I think their telecommunications statute could overall do with some narrowing, but it's a bigger problem with internet communications, which I think is pretty obvious to anyone who has ever spent considerable amount of time, well, actually on the internet.

*Arizona's statutory definition of harassment already limits it to behavior directed at a specific person, so by simply omitting the overbroad language, they could overcome that hurdle..

** Or aggravated harassment. Arizona's harassment statute is broken up differently from New York's, which is what I'm used to. In NY, aggravated harassment is distinguished from harassment by involving communication rather than physical contact, whereas in AZ, aggravated harassment requires a kind of communication in violation of a court order of protection or injunction, hence my mistake earlier.

EDIT: As an aside, it looks like the jurisdiction hurdle over the internet becomes a dormant commerce clause issue more often than not, particularly with state crimes.

[Less Than Liz]

Revisions of AZ internet harassment bill planned.

Quote:

Vogt said Wednesday that the bill would be amended to say those harassing communications must be directed at a specific person and must be "unwanted or unsolicited." Those updates did not appear yet on an online version of the bill viewed Wednesday morning.

How 'bout dat.

[Teh Bad Kittah]

The police state keeps getting closer and closer as I've been preaching. Can it be defensible in court? The internet isn't apart of America and therefore free speech might not be protected. But hell, some ED-P Trolls serving time in jail? Wouldn't that be grand.

[Raxa]

Less Than Liz

Revisions of AZ internet harassment bill planned.

Quote:

Vogt said Wednesday that the bill would be amended to say those harassing communications must be directed at a specific person and must be "unwanted or unsolicited." Those updates did not appear yet on an online version of the bill viewed Wednesday morning.

How 'bout dat.

Thanks for the insight into the laws in other states.

It's a step in the right direction to narrow the application of the law (their amendments so far), however it is still a bit too broad. From the sound of it, it does still making flaming/trolling potentially a criminal act; as you stated to "annoy" or "offend" are still on the bill.

If the Massachusetts law reads as you paraphrased it, I would be much more inclined to see it as an acceptable extension of existing harassment laws.

[chromealias]

Oh no! There goes my favorite hobby on a drunken Wednesday night. When I'm in pain being crabby and a jerk to people makes me feel good.

[Wendigo]

Raxa

It's a step in the right direction to narrow the application of the law (their amendments so far), however it is still a bit too broad. From the sound of it, it does still making flaming/trolling potentially a criminal act; as you stated to "annoy" or "offend" are still on the bill.

It's tricky, because there is real harassment that goes on online, over cell services and through other communication channels that is a valid concern and should be stopped, but anything you say about the one is applicable to the other, in theory.

And offending people is...well, it's not hard, I can tell you that much.