In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Okay, Arizona, now you’re just messing with us.

Caperton

Politicians’ complete and willful ignorance of the way the Internet really works would be entertaining, if it weren’t so dangerous. For instance: In Arizona (oh, always Arizona), the state legislature has passed HB 2549, which states (in part):

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.

Of course the bill is pretty much indefensible on grounds of free speech, intent, general vagueness, whiny-titty-babytude, and basic geography. But the Arizona government has demonstrated that silly concerns like reason aren’t high on their priority list. So all y’all who are just out to annoy me and offend me using your computers (or cell phones or tablets or whatever)? Y’all had better not be from Arizona, is all.

(Actually, you’d better hope you’re not from Arizona anyway. That place is getting rough.)

Posted in Law

29 thoughts on Okay, Arizona, now you’re just messing with us.

  1. In celebration of HB2549 I hereby invite the great state of Arizona, through it’s duly elected representatives, to go fuck itself with a cactus.

  3. LOLOLOLOL.

    What?! Are they actually planning to enforce this somehow? One can’t use “profane” language to “annoy” people on the internet? Well, I guess that’s pretty much curtains then for Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and all other social media.

    Way to stay relevant guys! Maybe you can outlaw VHS tapes next–I’ve heard somewhere that over the past few decades kids have begun using them to *gasp* sell pirated recordings of material that they don’t hold the legal copyright to. You should probably also look into something called “Ebay.com.” If I’m remembering correctly, I believe it encourages people to become auctioneers, even when they lack the appropriate auctioneer license in their state of residence. So maybe get on that.

  7. I’m not sure this law is a good way to go about it, but I wouldn’t mind seeing some types of laws about internet conduct to stop the worst types of internet harassment.

    I know of some people who’ve been harassed and stalked pretty seriously on the internet (like the woman in this blog post: http://www.applecidermage.com/2012/03/07/learned-helplessness-harassment/ ) who, despite having had incredibly threatening and violent comments about her, had a lot of trouble getting the issue taken seriously by law enforcement, and even after she finally got a restraining order there wasn’t really anything the police could do to stop the guy. It’s been going on for years.

    I agree that people shouldn’t have to worry if they’re just trolling, but when it gets that serious it would be nice to have something police could do.

  8. Definitely not planning to leave Arizona. The desert is beautiful and I’m doing what I can to fight against bad legislation.

  9. So that leaves what? My Grandma’s Facebook page, and maybe 60% of LOLcats? Bummer. I’m gonna miss eatliver.com…
    At the risk of lending credence to madness, I have to ask: what’s the point here, what’s the endgame? Even the nuttiest crank living on the fringes of Wingtopia has to realize that this law doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making it intact out of the first courtroom it gets dragged into. So why pass the thing? Election year stunt? Feeding the Base? Probably pointless questions, I’m just trying to get my brain around the spectacle of an entire political party actively trying to scare hell out of entire voting blocs…

  11. @Chataya:5

    in b4 not your personal army.

    also if this bill passess… well im not advocating anybody break the law for any reason but hypothetically if one were to setup a proxy from the internet connection of certain government officials “causing problems” over there it might also be hypothetically possible to claim that said ip address belonging to said proxy was guilty of harassment if they, oooh I don’t know, “used language that defamed or harmed women online”… #justsayin 😉

  12. i kind of have to agree with Heynonny. i mean, i’m not sure what the real on-the-ground applications of the law will be, but what if it helps reduce the number of stalkers who purposefully target women bloggers online? i’ve read really shitty stories (some on this blog, if i’m not mistaken) about death and rape threats that women who blog get on a regular basis, that can have really threatening overtones like including your address. there must be some way to legislate increased protection for people to interact safely online, without censorship. (obviously this probably isn’t how the law would play out, but a girl can dream)

  14. In their defense, they’re making a well-meaning attempt to extend the existing telephone harassment law to include other digital media. They really are trying to protect victims bullying, harassment, or domestic violence. But in the process, they’ve outlawed taunting your friends via text throughout the entirety of a football game, or e-mailing your mom a blasphemous photo with the intent of her replying, “Oh, Caperton.” They’re outlawing offensive content before it’s offended anyone. And they’ve demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how the Internet works–what if the victim is in Phoenix, but the harasser is in Cincinnati? Does the Phoenix PD call the Cincy PD with an extradition request? What if the harasser is in Cincinnati, targeting a victim in Los Angeles, but bouncing it through a tor server in Phoenix? What if two people in Massachusetts are getting into it on a comment thread that is triggering to a person in Arizona?

    This is what happens when you leave Internet legislation up to people who still say “and then the ‘at’ sign” in the middle of their e-mail addresses.

  15. but what if it helps reduce the number of stalkers who purposefully target women bloggers online?

    Thats probably the intent of the law, at least partially. As Caperton said, this is aimed at bullying/stalking/harassment. Unfortunately, the internet is…well…different. I’m not terribly computer savvy and I can change my IP address at will, all day long, in a manner that is pretty close to untraceable and likely actually untraceable by all but the highest levels of government. A law like this is basically unenforceable when it comes to people actually intending to harass because it is so incredibly easy to circumvent any investigative apparatus and so broad that it is likely to target all kinds of speech that ought to be absolutely protected by the constitution. More than that, its foolish because of the way the internet works. A harassing telephone call is likely local and almost certainly no more than national, a stalker following you is in a jurisdiction where laws might help, an anonymous commenter on the internet could be in outer Mongolia.

    The strength of the internet is that it is decentralized, difficult to control, and thus it is virtually impossible to actually restrict speech anywhere that has access to the internet. Laws like this threaten that strength and, in doing so, actively oppress people whose only access to free or physically safe communication is the internet. The enforcement apparatuses necessary for a law like this would be the exact same things a bureaucrat would need to target “obscene” speech on the internet, or a tyrant would need to target “subversive” speech. Because the internet isn’t local you have to imagine not only the impact that this kind of enforcement would have if it were in the hands of, say, the Sarah Palin but the implications of creating the real possibility that a civil rights advocate at Berkley might be extradited to Arizona for offending someone. Its a nightmare.

  16. “and then the ‘at’ sign” made me laugh, and then I realized something. Remember back in 1993 when the internet was new and everyone had to say that, and some people still didn’t know what the ‘at’ sign was, so you had to be all, “Shift 2, man”? Those were the old days.

    Good times.

    Sorry. It’s just I realized I haven’t had to say that in years, and it’s weird to think about a time when you did have to say that.

  17. I can see this law is meant to deal with online harassment, but the problem is that the language goes too far. If they had banned stuff posted “with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, [or] harass,” they might have something there, but adding “annoy or offend” just takes it out of the realm of helpful and into the realm of First Amendment violation. Even “harass” is a bit borderline.

  18. I think the idea of wanting to do something about internet harrassment is a good one, but it seems like it’d make more sense to amend stalking laws and such to include electronic media as sources that would be considered.

    My best friend had to change her blog and e-mail address multiple times a few years ago because of an ex who began stalking her in person, by phone, and online. She was lucky that the cops took the e-mails she had received seriously, but it was the phone calls and the physically showing up at her home and work that made them able to do something.

    But this legislation is ridiculous. It’s too open ended and the enforcability is a joke.

  19. They had a very similar law in Connecticut (cf. here), which didn’t make it though (cf. here). Meanwhile, the AZ bill will be amended:

    Vogt said Wednesday that the bill would be amended to say those harassing communications must be directed at a specific person and must be “unwanted or unsolicited.”…

    The bill will not apply to online comment sections or semi-public forums such as Facebook walls, Vogt said.

    (cf. full story on CNN).

    Then again, maybe we’re all just wearing tin foil hats:

    As the co-sponsor of HB2549 I can see the conspiracy have their tin-foil hats on tonight.

    HB2549 is being chased down by the “black-helicopter” crowd. Their claims of internet restriction are unfounded and way off base!!

    , as one of the co-sponsors of the bill said.

    At the same time, a very thorough analysis of the problems with the AZ bill as it stands can be found here.

  20. Their claims of internet restriction are unfounded and way off base!!

    Translation from pol-speak to vernacular: we are totally trying to restrict the internet, we’re just a smidge bit lost in this here maze of tubes and we’re hoping the extra exclamation point will help Lassie find us.

  21. Caperton: They really are trying to protect victims of bullying, harassment, or domestic violence.

    Arizona is a GOP controlled state. The GOP doesn’t believe domestic violence exists, and bullying is a-ok by them. (As long as it happens to gay and lesbian kids, or kids who are the wrong color.) Somehow I doubt that this bill was passed with the intent of actually doing anything at all to protect people who get harrassed online.

  23. Pingback: Okay, Arizona, now you’re just messing with us. – Master Huldschinsky's Adventures

  24. I think the idea of wanting to do something about internet harrassment is a good one, but it seems like it’d make more sense to amend stalking laws and such to include electronic media as sources that would be considered. . .But this legislation is ridiculous. It’s too open ended and the enforcability is a joke.

    QFT.

  25. Arizona, honey, secede already. And just give me time to move away from Texas and it can secede, too.

  26. Well, chalk up another war that nutty conservative Republicans are waging. Republicans and their War on Women. Republicans and their War on Caterpillars (that is, their War on EPA Regulations that try to protect caterpillars and other insects). Republicans and their War on The 99 Percent. Republicans and their War on Labor Unions. Republicans and their War on the U.S. Postal Service. Republicans and their War on Military Veterans. Republicans and their War on Science. Republicans and their War on Porn (Rick Santorum, John Ashcroft, countless others). Republicans and their War on “Terror” (neverending and profitable). Republicans and their War on Drugs (also neverending but very also very profitable). Republicans and their War on Public Education. Republicans and their War on Religions (any religion other than their religion). Republicans and their War on Gays. Republicans and their War on Atheists. Republicans and their War on America (and our liberal democracy). Republicans and their War on the U.S. Constitution and its amendments (except the 2nd amendment for some reason). Republicans and their War on Abortions. Republicans and their War on Contraceptives. Republicans and their War on Blacks. Republicans and their War on Immigrants. (whew, are there anymore, my fingers are getting tired)

    And to think that with all this War mentality driving practically everything that conservative Republicans do, with them trying to censor practically everything at the drop of a hat, that most Republicans still claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, who taught and demonstrated the exact opposite of war. Go figure. Republicans are so busy and obsessed with one war after another that they hardly have time for peace.

  27. This doesn’t apply the Governor Janet Brewer. Brewer’s statements about people crossing the southern border and decapitating Arizona citizens. Her statements go along with “We are not bombing Cambodia” & “Weapons of mass destruction”.

  28. I’m wondering how this law even got passed… It’s pretty safe to say that just about anything could “annoy” or “offend” someone else. Personally, I’m annoyed by advertizements that appear on the side of websites. Sometimes I’m even offended by them (like the ones that promote Wal-Mart). Does that mean I can sue those companies? ‘Course I’d have to prove intent, but for some ads, that does not seem like such a difficult task.
    There is a lot of cyber bullying and harassment going on, though. If this law truly aims to combat this, then that’s a great goal. However the language is as such that effectively implementing this legislation is all but impossible. I wonder what the reps were thinking when they voted in favor of it.

  29. it seems like it’d make more sense to amend stalking laws and such to include electronic media as sources that would be considered.

    That’s exactly what they’re doing, they just didn’t do a very good job of it. One of the main lobbies behind this bill is a a County Attorney’s office that takes domestic violence very seriously, and faces challenges getting convictions when offenders use electronics to stalk people. They really just included “any electronic device” in the existing stalking and telephone harassment laws. It’s bad drafting, for sure, but the AZ state legislature isn’t exactly known for appropriately analyzing unintended consequences. The bill will likely be amended to either restrict application to people who meet the relationship test under the domestic violence statute, or will somehow manage to include bullying without including everyone who calls someone a name on the internet.

    @PoliticalGuineaPig
    The anti-bullying bill would have passed if the Center for Arizona Policy hadn’t started whispering in people’s ears. They actively threaten Republicans who don’t follow their agenda with support for a different candidate, and they are notorious for homophobic laws. If you don’t count ALEC, which is a nationwide entity, CAP is probably the most powerful group down there. This isn’t to say that the legislators themselves aren’t also homophobic (they are), but my understanding is that they had the votes until CAP got involved.

Comments are currently closed.