Arizona is at it again.

[the_std]

What? No one is accusing you of a crime. Did you not read the law? It covers using digital means to annoy someone! Since when is being annoying a crime? That is exactly what we're talking about! And then if you actually pay attention to what Andara said, it's a perfect example of everything you're ignoring - this law has the capability to be totally and utterly abused. I don't really know how you can ignore that fact, even if you agree with the sentiment of the law.

[ngc_7331]

It's a good example of why you shouldn't frivolously accuse someone of a crime.

By Arizona's standards, you have committed a crime. You annoyed me, therefore according to the law, you have committed a misdemeanor that can carry with it 6 months in jail. So who's to say what's annoying? I have a very high tolerance for annoyance but some people may not. Technically if this law passes, I can have one of my classmates arrested (he's in AZ, I'm in FL) for verbally harassing me in class due to my lack of religion. Hell, I can get him nailed with a charge for a hate crime on top of it, which in AZ is considered during sentencing as an aggravating circumstance. Do you think that's right?

[Duelist925]

It's a good example of why you shouldn't frivolously accuse someone of a crime.

And a better example of why lawmakers shouldnt pass frivolous LAWS

Fact of the matter, under the law as it was written, yes, you COULD have been accused of violating it. And you think people wouldn't abuse the SHIT out of that?

Hell, if that law had passed than this entire forum could easily have had some bad things done to it, were enough of its members both A: Dickheads and B: Arizonians. A lot of the talk on thsi forum is of an inflamatory nature--in other words, stuff that offends, or annoys, people. Just as stated within the law.

The law was a bad idea. It was a bad law, and completely unnecessary.

[draco664]

It's a good example of why you shouldn't frivolously accuse someone of a crime.

Surely it would be better for everyone if these fucking laws weren't on the books in the first place?

[blas87]

Hah, if everyone at my work who annoyed me was penalized, I'd be working alone and they'd all be on death row or serving more time in prison than Charles Manson and his little witches.

[ngc_7331]

Hah, if everyone at my work who annoyed me was penalized, I'd be working alone and they'd all be on death row or serving more time in prison than Charles Manson and his little witches.

After reading some of your stories, I don't doubt that in the least. And I have a feeling that applies to quite a few people here as well. We all have or had coworkers we wanted to smack.

[SongsOfDragons]

Everyone run aways! The purge of the annoying is commencing and the lawmakers are writing the definition...XD It's also probably unworkable in its current form.

I should mention that Britain's version of anti-trolling law has thus far got only seriously offensive trollers, mostly people who post crap on suicide or otherwise-dead teenager memorial pages, or people who harrass celebrities. More in favour of former than latter, personally. At least, these seem to be the things I've seen on the BBC.

[Silverharp]

Did you even read the article or are you trolling?



It's not just bullying

Example: If you send a PM to your significent other to hook up later? You just broke the law! If they leave their account open and someone else sees it, you could be reported and fined or even see jail time.

Yeah, this is fucked up. (shit! I just broke the law...twice!)

[Silverharp]

Ooookay...did I just walk into a thread where someone was acused of hating America because of a difference of opinion?

[Greenday]

Ooookay...did I just walk into a thread where someone was acused of hating America because of a difference of opinion?

Yes, yes you did.

[draco664]

Ooookay...did I just walk into a thread where someone was acused of hating America because of a difference of opinion?

Nope. Read again.

Yes, yes you did.

No, I accused you of hating America because you think people who disagree with you shouldn't be able to voice their opinions.

You are welcome to that opinion. And I will fight for you to be able to express it in whatever form you may. If someone wants to take offense at it and try to shut you up, I'll defend your right to speak your mind to the best of my ability.

I just think it's a stupid opinion, that's all.

[ngc_7331]

Ooookay...did I just walk into a thread where someone was acused of hating America because of a difference of opinion?

No, you walked into a thread where someone was accused of hating the First Amendment for supporting a law that stifles free speech because someone might get annoyed.

[Mytical]

I've said it many times, I will say it again. If we start limiting what somebody says because it bothers another person..soon we won't be able to say anything. I mean, hey..I think the KKK and their ilk should shut up and sit down...but I am sure a lot of what I say bothers other people also. So .. *shrugs*. Who gets to decide what is 'offensive'? Why? What gives them the 'moral authority'?

[Amanita]

^I remember John Stossel, of ABC new's show 20/20. I didn't always agree with everything he said, but he made one comment that was spot-on. "Do the most offended get to make the rules?"

He had a good point, especially since some people out there are either so tetchy that everything sets them off, or they seriously look to be offended.

[ngc_7331]

So .. *shrugs*. Who gets to decide what is 'offensive'? Why? What gives them the 'moral authority'?

Hell, it's not even "offensive" speech, it's "annoying" speech. If I could get people arrested for being annoying, my little brother would have spent half of his life in jail already.