Arizona Politicians Scramble To Adjust Internet Censorship Bill After The Internet Mocks Them For Being Clueless

from the this-won't-end-well dept

You know what's a bad sign? When you're a state legislature, and you pass what's clearly an unconstitutional law that criminalizes using technology to "annoy or offend" others -- and then you have to scramble after-the-fact to amend the bill you already passed. Yes, thanks to a rather loud public mocking of Arizona politicians for ignoring the First Amendment in its internet censorship bill, the Arizona legislature is trying to amend the bill quickly.

Here's a thought, though: if you passed a bill so bad that people around the globe are mocking you, perhaps it suggests you don't know what you're doing. At that point, shouldn't you back away from mucking with the internet, and leave that to the professionals who actually understand technology? Somehow, diving back in and pretending that this time you'll get it right doesn't inspire confidence. And, in fact, the details suggest that any amendments considered at this point will almost certainly still be First Amendment violations.
“Even so narrowed, the statute is unconstitutional. You simply cannot prohibit emails that are said to be intended to offend. That violates the First Amendment flat out,” said University of Chicago Law School professor Geoffrey Stone, who specializes in constitutional law. “You can prohibit email if the recipient has requested you to stop sending them. That’s different -- but that’s not what this says.”
Still, I think the most ridiculous words of all come from Rep. Steve Farley from Phoenix whose statement on the bill is really quite stunning:
"I know people are focusing on unintended consequences of the bill, but I don’t think that's realistic," Farley said. "I think this is a wakeup call that we should be civil online and in society in general. I don’t think it's right we should ever be able to threaten violence against each other online."
I love how he doesn't explain why the unintended consequences aren't "realistic." He just insists that's the case. Of course, anyone who's actually been around policymaking (especially when it comes to technology) knows that there are always unintended consequences. And it's not hard to find unintended consequences of a bill like this that broadly outlaws "annoying" people with electronic devices.

But even more ridiculous is that second half. You don't legislate civility. We don't make a law saying you have to say "please" and "thank you." Look, some people are obnoxious jerks out there. That's not a legislative problem. Finally, his claim that people shouldn't be able to threaten violence against each other might have some weight if the bill was actually limited to people threatening violence. But it's not.

How do people like this get elected?

Filed Under: arizona, censorship, cyberbullying

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Chargone (profile), 8 Apr 2012 @ 6:09am

    Re: Ummmm

    'course, they do the same or equivalent for every special interest group who's members are likely to vote in large numbers and any corporation or business etc likely to be willing to br... err... sorry... contribute to their campaign funds.

    politicians, you know.

    (here abouts, they instead have blatantly corrupt opinion polls run as news as if they were fact to discourage their opponent's supporters from voting while offering unsuportable tax cuts... heck, the current lot won the election that put them in power by promising Not to carry out their unpopular policies (that were pretty much inevitably going to happen eventually due to being fundamental to their 'more money in our pockets' ideology) which is stupid because they only promised not to do that for One term, and if you get a first term you're pretty much garanteed a second due to the weird nature of the electorate here unless you screw up most royally. a combination of that fact and the blatant propaganda campaign pretending to be reporting on the elections (those corrupt polls and onesided reports again) got them in a second time despite This time making the single most hated thing in NZ politics (government selling vital infrastructure and revenue streams to foreign interests, for the short version) the most visable part of their campaign platform. squeeked in with EXACTLY 50%+1 seats after adding in the one seat the only party willing to form a coalition with them in light of the poison that is that platform managed to get. had they got even one seat less we might have seen the, otherwise insane sounding and highly unlikely, outcome of EVERY other party forming a coalition to keep them out. ... it was that unpopular. 1/4th of the eligable voters did not vote, incidentally, so any claim that they have a mandate for such activity dies quickly)

    gah, WAY off topic there. sorry. (not sorry enough to eliminate it, but still..)

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.