Thank you Arizona

[swake]

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.

You need to read what the law actually says:

"It is unlawful for any person,
with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend,
to use a 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."

You are actually defending this?  You know what? Your statement annoys me, you go to jail.

Arizona really is a strange place.

[TulsaRufnex]

Tipper Gore would be proud.

[jacobi]

This whole thing reminds me of a dilbert where he has a V-chip installed on his TV that is overly sensitive.  All that is left is the weather channel.  Then, coverage of a tornado begins and it blinks out.

Seriously, I wonder how they would prossecute cross state lines cases?  International cases?

[AquaMan]

It does seem like it would eliminate a lot of junk e-mail, collection notices, landlord notices, political chain letters etc. that clog internet mail. But it also seems like it may shut down forums who would fear lawsuits. What's that phrase about losing freedoms over excess in providing security?

[Hoss]

It does seem like it would eliminate a lot of junk e-mail, collection notices, landlord notices, political chain letters etc. that clog internet mail. But it also seems like it may shut down forums who would fear lawsuits. What's that phrase about losing freedoms over excess in providing security?

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[AquaMan]

Thank you. Ben Franklin? Thomas Jefferson?

[Hoss]

Thank you. Ben Franklin? Thomas Jefferson?

It's been attributed to Franklin, but there are many who say he didn't write or say it.  The Wikiquote page says this (keeping in mind the source):

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This was written by Franklin, within quotation marks but is generally accept as his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts(broken link since 2012-04-01) that were used in it.

[AquaMan]

Maybe someone should send that link to Ms Brewer and the AZ legislature.

My personal opinion is that safety is an illusion. The depths you will go to secure it are a measure of your own delusional propensity. IOW, we're all about as crazy as we want to be.