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/
Quote from: swake on April 03, 2012, 09:05:02 AM
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.
So is she trying to make Fox Nation illegal?
Ummm, pot calling kettle?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18597.0 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=18597.0)
Actually it is an ammendmant to an existing law........
http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/618292 (http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/618292)
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?
Quote from: TheArtist on April 03, 2012, 01:53:17 PM
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.
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:
Quote
"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/
Quote from: guido911 on April 03, 2012, 03:04:57 PM
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.
Quote from: swake on April 03, 2012, 03:14:15 PM
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.
Quote from: guido911 on April 03, 2012, 03:39:10 PM
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...
Quote from: patric on April 05, 2012, 01:15:17 PM
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?
Quote from: guido911 on April 05, 2012, 08:59:30 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: dbacks fan on April 06, 2012, 03:03:17 AM
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:
Quote
"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.
Tipper Gore would be proud.
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?
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?
Quote from: AquaMan on April 06, 2012, 09:48:01 AM
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?
QuoteThose who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Thank you. Ben Franklin? Thomas Jefferson?
Quote from: AquaMan on April 06, 2012, 10:05:12 AM
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.
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.