Arizona Anti-troll Bill Spells Trouble for Free Speech

[XLFD]

Twenty-five years for trolling?

There is no current member of the Ludington Torch who calls Arizona their home, but a new bill only needs their governor's signature to become law.  Though well intentioned, it has the potential to criminalize what would now be free speech protected by the first amendment.  I think if this does become law, it will be eventually declared unconstitutional, and with good reason.  I don't like the trolls we sometimes attract here, but do we really need a law like this, and will it be abused if it does get adopted?  Full text of the link follows:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/04/03/watch-your-commen...

 

We’d all prefer that the internet was a more civil place. For every well-reasoned, considerate comment out there, there a dozen violent, all-caps homophobic rants. But it’s hard to do anything about it. Unfortunately, part of freedom of speech on the Internet seems to be the freedom of huge numbers of people to be jerks.

Arizona, however, which doesn’t have the best reputation for protecting civil liberties, is doing something about it. The legislature recently passed House Bill 2549, which uses broad language that could turn a troublingly large swath of online chatter into a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 25 years in jail. It reads:

 

“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.”

 

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund argues that because the law is not limited to covering one-on-one communications, it could potentially open up the entire world of comments, forums, blog posts and more to criminal scrutiny. Gizmodo notes that because Reddit isn’t exactly a physical location, the law could become concerning to people outside of Arizona as well.

This doesn’t seem like a malicious attempt to curtail free speech. The language is a straight update of old telephone harassment laws with words like “electronic” and “digital” thrown in. It makes sense from that perspective – all the legislators did was  update an old law for new technology. But by failing to recognize that intensely personal telephone communication is inherently different from comment sections, they’ve crafted a misguided law.

I’m all for striving towards civility on the internet. And I’m all for opening up cyberspace to law enforcement investigating true harassment and real crimes. But a law with the power to criminalize such a vast proportion of irritating speech is a dangerous thing indeed. The law is reminiscent of SOPA – legislators trying to clamp down on something they conceive of as dangerous but don’t understand well enough to effectively regulate.

House Bill 2549 is currently sitting on Governor Jan Brewer’s desk, awaiting approval.

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

I'd agree that those behind the law probably had good intentions but with the way its written, it would seem only a matter of time before it got deemed unconstitutional.

[XLFD]

I see the words "threaten" and "intimidate" in the language of the bill, and see a link between some local legislation the Ludington City Council passed to limit their citizens' speech. and this bill.  Like SOPA and recent anti-terrorist law, it seems to have a more over-reaching purpose than to do what it is designed to do.

[Willy]

I agree with your analogy X.

[Marty Redman]

How about this idea... every time a lawmaker at any level puts forth or sponsors a bill that restricts constitutional rights of Americans there is simultaniously entered a recall vote to the voters of his/her district on the next ballot.