Dear Jan (and you, too, Sherriff Joe)
Make my day!
Sign it,and I'll be happy to "annoy and offend"!
The Arizona legislature has passed a bill that makes it illegal to annoy anyone over the internet. You think we're joking? The Reg – solid and stolid defender of all that is right and true – does not joke about matters of such import. Check it out: It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, …
The bill was amended in the senate and sent back to the house, where it died. I think it started out as a do-nothing feel-good legislation (it passed unanimously) and then, probably due to the furor, they took another look at what they'd passed and realized they had technically outlawed free speech. And so, being politicians concerned about their re-election possibilities, they decided to let the bill die silently and hope that everyone forgets about it.
some people on here are blaming the "conservative" right for this law. I personally would put this one at the feet of the politically-correct "liberal" left, since they're the ones that preach "tolerance" and "acceptance" while being more intolerant and unaccepting of those whose opinions differ from the official PC worldview, than any historical fascists ever were.
Consider how dangerous (even potentially career-destroying) it has become to publicly say anything that is politically incorrect these days. The irony is that while so many people profess to despise political correctness, large numbers of those same people will blow their fuses in fury and demand resignations the moment somebody says something that is actually un-PC.
Not "annoy or offend"? Only PC proponents - and that's the lefties - would demand legislation banning "offending" people.
> say anything that is politically incorrect these days.
You mean like when Bush and Cheney were firing economic people for daring to complain about deficits being dangerous or firing scientists for not changing their science reports?
>Not "annoy or offend"? Only PC proponents - and that's the lefties - would demand legislation banning "offending" people.
Did you notice 6 Republicans sponsored this bill? As for banning offending people no the right loves banning offending information instead. Its not lefties that get on school boards and try to ban science that offends their religion.
Arizona is an awful state anyway. It's full of senile pants pooping old people, shit eating rednecks and collar popping douche bags.
This will only help alienate Arizona from the rest of the good world and I welcome it. Insterad of a wall across the mexican border put one around arizona.
What do you have a two hour layover in Phoenix international and now you are an expert on the state? Its one the naturally most beautiful states in the country. We not only have about the coolest meteor crater on earth but we have this little thing called the Grand Canyon you may have heard of. Yes the cities outside of Phoenix metro area for most part sucks and yes our leaders are right wing retards but their is a reason so many sports stars and rich people live here. Remember how you shoveled snow and scrapped your windows nearly every morning this winter? Yeah I haven't done either in years.
"to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act,"
So thats any number of stand up comedians (lewd profane language) who release dvd's,nhorny text message, anyone using a swinger site, or in some cases dating site. The Sun newspaper website. Personally I'm annoyed by Simon Cowell.
My Nan used to be offended by the word "sod" or "bloody". If they're going to word it as loosely as 'annoy' you may as well shut the internet down now.
This bill (now amended and dying or dead) could have been used to sue Ted Nugent, who openly threatened the President and Hilary Clinton (and assorted others) with a gun in one of his rants. Rush Limbaugh (in the way he described a certain student who testified before congress) could be seen as insulting and harassing using obscene language (i.e. business as usual). He too could be sued. Did the Republicans involved realize this? If so, they might be commended for trying to deal with extremist views from people who claim to be on their side. If not, they might have made the amendments and killed it because they collectively went "oops."
As others have said, you cannot legislate for good manners. Besides, notions of what is acceptable change. We can now say "swut", "jujuflop" and turlingdrome" and know we are healthy, well-adjusted and completely un*****-up personalities. So long as we do not say "Belgium"
It is a change to an existing body of law, extending limits on telephone calls to all electronic communication. So at least the lawyers and the courts know what has been classed as "annoying". It may very well not match how we use the word.
One possible example: telephone sales. If the some telephone sales calls have been classified as annoying, under the earlier law, we might have an anti-spam law here.
I don't think this is as crazy as it sounds.