Thank you Arizona

[swake]

For making Oklahoma look a little more sane.

Jan Brewer is at it again. Arizona makes most of the internet illegal.



http://gizmodo.com/house-bill-2549/

[Hoss]

For making Oklahoma look a little more sane.

Jan Brewer is at it again. Arizona makes most of the internet illegal.



http://gizmodo.com/house-bill-2549/

I bet she and Gubner Fallin have sleepovers to discuss what wacky law they'll think up next.

[joiei]

So is she trying to make Fox Nation illegal?   

[dbacks fan]

Ummm, pot calling kettle?

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18597.0

[dbacks fan]

Actually it is an ammendmant to an existing law........

http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/618292

[TheArtist]

 Danged liberals and their don't want to offend anyone "political correctness"/ thought police/ government telling people what they can and cant say and do... oh, wait, ..what?

[guido911]

Danged liberals and their don't want to offend anyone "political correctness"/ thought police/ government telling people what they can and cant say and do... oh, wait, ..what?

That's what I say. Wait, wasn't there a thread in here recently on silencing speech?  

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18786.0


As for this thread, just another "Oklahoma is bad, but other states are worse" slap.

Edited to add:  Yes, I'm opposed to this bill...Only opposed to the double standard on speech.

[swake]

There are a lot of things that annoy me on Jan Bewer's website. And she is pretty plainly and intentionally harassing and threatening Illegal immigrants on her website, so isn't she in violation of this law?

According to the law:

"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."

So can we have her locked up for 25 years?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/04/03/watch-your-comments-arizona-law-could-punish-trolling-with-25-years/

[swake]

That's what I say. Wait, wasn't there a thread in here recently on silencing speech?  

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18786.0


As for this thread, just another "Oklahoma is bad, but other states are worse" slap.

Edited to add:  Yes, I'm opposed to this bill...Only opposed to the double standard on speech.

Come on, you are smart enough to perceive the difference between individuals disapproving of speech via a campaign to not spend money in support of offending speech and the state enacting a law placing a 25 year prison sentence for the crime of annoying someone on the internet?

Rush had better get his show off the internet damn quick if this law stands, because offending people is his whole shtick and doing so is about to carry serious jail time.

[guido911]

Come on, you are smart enough to perceive the difference between individuals disapproving of speech via a campaign to not spend money in support of offending speech and the state enacting a law placing a 25 year prison sentence for the crime of annoying someone on the internet?

Rush had better get his show off the internet damn quick if this law stands, because offending people is his whole shtick and doing so is about to carry serious jail time.

Whether there is a difference or not means nothing when you talk about speech. I have spent an appreciable amount of time on this subject from a lawyer point of view in recent days and am peculiarly interested in government interference with those rights.

And boycotts are by definition intended to protest action/opinion through economic pressure. And with Rush, it wasn't just individuals it was city councils and government officials sticking their noses into free speech rights.

[patric]

it wasn't just individuals it was city councils and government officials sticking their noses into free speech rights.

Seems like when that happens lately it involves a lot of heavily armed people in riot gear violently enforcing some vague trespassing ordinance...

[guido911]

Seems like when that happens lately it involves a lot of heavily armed people in riot gear violently enforcing some vague trespassing ordinance...

Good Grief WE GET IT. Cops are bad. They perform ZERO service. They are ALL evil, jackbooted thugs. There. Can we move on now?

[patric]

Good Grief WE GET IT. Cops are bad. They perform ZERO service. They are ALL evil, jackbooted thugs. There. Can we move on now?

You don't get it.

[guido911]

You don't get it.

Aww crap.

[dbacks fan]

I so love how people spin things. The basis of this is similar to other anti stalking laws, and they are including something similar to the "Do Not Call" legislation and are trying to change it to include being stalked, harrased, threatened, and otherwise intimidated via any electronic device, meaning home phone, cell phone, and computer. It is an attempt to take on "cyber bullying" as a threat or harrassment the same way that you can file charges against someone for doing the same thing using a phone or mail service. It will fall under the same guidelines as any threatening situation that already exists. At least AZ has the balls in the legislature to try and take on things like this instead of worrying about human fetuses being used as a food addiative. Also I don't believe that this was some whim that Brewer came up with, and blaming the governor of any state for coming up with wierd laws (unless they sign them in as law) is just stupid.