What do you make of this?

Here's a line from a bill looking to be passed in Arizona

"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 general consensus is that Arizona wants to make internet trolling illegal. But from the sounds of it this bill only affects Arizona. I have to wonder how that will work. What happens if someone not from Arizona and therefore not subject to the law trolls someone from Arizona? Surely you can't arrest someone from a location on the grounds of a local law. Additionally since the internet allows International communication and we can agree Arizona is not most of the world I doubt this law will have much effect even if it is passed. Well that's my two cents, what do you think? One article covering it is located here. Additionally googling "Trolling illegal in Arizona" or something to that effect should yield plenty of articles as well.

didn't you already post this in the chat?

and eh. really it just embodies how fucking sue-happy people are these days. You dropped your book in my house? I'mma sue you for everything you fucking own, you damaged my floor!

Essentially, while I think trolling is a dick thing to do, it's nothing to outlaw. That's just ASKING to flood the courts with "He said, She said" bullshit.

And think that means something coming from me, considering my track record with Silloe.

Zerahnor wrote:didn't you already post this in the chat?

and eh. really it just embodies how fucking sue-happy people are these days. You dropped your book in my house? I'mma sue you for everything you fucking own, you damaged my floor!

Essentially, while I think trolling is a dick thing to do, it's nothing to outlaw. That's just ASKING to flood the courts with "He said, She said" bullshit.

If anyone referenced this in chat it wasn't me. I agree that it's a silly thing to outlaw too since kids may not have any idea what they're doing. And we all know kids with parents who couldn't care less let their child have at a computer supervised, after all there are stupider things a parent has done. I just have no idea HOW they plan to enforce it. For instance voice chatting on a game like CoD. I mean is there a back up of all the audio files somewhere and are there people who will sift through these countless files to find something? And again the issue of this only affecting Arizona... Guess we'll wait and see.

I posted this in chat about three days ago.

lol voice chatting in CoD makes my bf's brother so livid when children cuss him out hahahahah.... random memory, sorry.

[composure]anyway, I don't see what they'll even consider legal about trolling... because people could use that as the world's douchiest trolling tool ever.

EDIT: Oh, it was you Anon? Whoopsie.

AnonymousMessage wrote:I posted this in chat about three days ago.

Well I wasn't there then I still want people to discuss this even if they missed it before though so I won't lock it.

Zerahnor wrote:lol voice chatting in CoD makes my bf's brother so livid when children cuss him out hahahahah.... random memory, sorry.

[composure]anyway, I don't see what they'll even consider legal about trolling... because people could use that as the world's douchiest trolling tool ever.

EDIT: Oh, it was you Anon? Whoopsie.

Yeah that's another issue. Especially when it comes to the "intent" part. Using that word means you have to prove someone was TRYING to be obnoxious rather than just coming off as obnoxious to the other party.

Nithhogg wrote:

Zerahnor wrote:lol voice chatting in CoD makes my bf's brother so livid when children cuss him out hahahahah.... random memory, sorry.

[composure]anyway, I don't see what they'll even consider legal about trolling... because people could use that as the world's douchiest trolling tool ever.

EDIT: Oh, it was you Anon? Whoopsie.

Yeah that's another issue. Especially when it comes to the "intent" part. Using that word means you have to prove someone was TRYING to be obnoxious rather than just coming off as obnoxious to the other party.

lol, if they're a good enough troll, they could do that to... almost anyone well enoguh to at least get the case into court. Use Silloe as example. If he wanted to take me to court over trolling... I'm sure he'd find a way.

remember how s.o.p.a. suddenly sprang up and posed a genuine threat to the entire internet without having the support of a single person who A) understands what the internet is or B) isn't the primary voice of a company? well i'm not surprised if this is more of the same on a smaller scale- especially since the method of determining what counts as offensive is entirely faulty from any legal perspective. honestly? everything is offensive to someone. that statement was offensive to someone. looking back, i can't think of a mainstream meme on level that hasn't caused someone grief( fake grief maybe, but arizona wouldn't care.)

All this going on I'm just worried about Panda....I mean sure he might be the worlds worst Troll but he is still a Troll.

Yeah I do find these laws seem to be made by people with little to no understanding of how the internet works. It's possible that like SOPA it'll just flop over and die (speaking of which has anyone seen hide or hair of ACTA?) Maybe they'll employ the use of the "butthurt report forms" to determine legal action.

Sopa Isn't dead, They are just rewriting it.

Edit: We should make a "Butthurt report forum"

[/late Anon] Nith already posted one in the random gif machine topic.

I meant as we knew it it died. The plan is to essentially re-word it so it does the same thing but sounds better. They're just bidding their time until they can get a more favorable vote I guess?

and this: