|
 |
Townhall...
Arizona to Ban
“Annoying” Behavior on the Internet
by Rachel Alexander
Apr 04, 2012
You and I may not use profanity in our Facebook posts, but what about
that crazy relative who puts up the funniest posts that sometimes cross
the line? Almost no one approves of swearing, but with the exception of
broadcasting during daytime TV and radio, it is not illegal. Now new
legislation in Arizona would effectively make swearing on the internet
a crime.
Sponsored by Democrats and liberal Republicans, Arizona House Bill 2549
passed both the House and Senate almost unanimously last week, and has
gone back to the House for a minor change before being sent to Governer
Jan Brewer to sign. The relevant part states:
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 expands Arizona anti-harassment laws beyond telephones and to the
internet. The problem with this is that one person specifically
telephoning another person is not the same thing as an anonymous
comment on the internet. This kind of behavior goes on all the time on
the internet. Every day on political blogs and news sites, some
commenters get a little out of hand, and most website editors handle
the problem by stepping in and deleting the offensive comments or
leaving a comment warning people to tame their comments.
Words like “annoy” and “offend” are vague and could be interpreted
broadly to prevent someone from simply engaging in political debate.
What one person considers profanity another might not. Is the word
“sucks” a swear word? What about “b.s.?” Plenty of families find those
acceptable, while others do not. Even anonymous commenters could be
liable, if an internet provider produces records tracing their IP
address.
There is no way this legislation will survive a First Amendment
challenge in court. The government cannot flat out ban all swear words,
which is effectively what this legislation does in the internet realm.
The courts have already carefully decided when and under what
circumstances the FCC may prohibit swear words on broadcast TV and
radio, and even those restrictions are now being reconsidered. Consider
all the swear words on TV and in movies. Then think of what a mammoth
task it would be policing the entire internet for swear words that
reportedly annoy or offend someone, and to come up with the additional
resources necessary to prosecute them. Anyone could get into a
political debate with someone on a political website, use one swear
word in their comments, and be considered violating the law. My own
political website, IntellectualConservative.com, is technically full of
violators. This is troubling since political debate is the bedrock of
our country, Constitution and the First Amendment.
Political analysts are already predicting Republicans are going to lose
Arizona legislative seats this election, and will lose at least one of
the two Houses. Nanny state bills like this, where Republicans do not
appear to be any different than Democrats, will do them in. Voters are
not going to be happy when the state ends up spending thousands of
dollars defending against a lawsuit everyone has predicted it will lose.
Media Coalition is leading the opposition to the bill, and hopefully
the legislature will listen to reason and back down from this atrocious
infringement on free speech. Opponents have created a mocking form to
report these internet crimes, and are calling upon Arizona’s Governor
Jan Brewer to veto it. One of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Vic Williams
(Tucson), a liberal Republican, defends it by calling his opponents
“crackpots and conspiracy theorists.”
Internet trolls have become the scourge of the internet. But just
because we do not like someone else’s free speech does not mean it
should be made illegal. That is what the core of the First Amendment is
about. Internet trolls are to the internet like TV advertisements are
to watching television. If you do not like someone’s behavior towards
you on the internet, get a restraining order against them. I did. There
are already laws in place against harassment and stalking. It is not
necessary to add a duplicate layer of law that will result in the
suppression of innocent political debate, and that will inevitably be
used for political vendettas. It may be disguised as a nanny, but it is
really Big Brother.
Read this and other articles at Townhall
|
|
|
|
