You thought Grammar Nazis were bad before? Now when you "annoy" or "offend" them with your imperfect grammar and spelling they will be able to call the law on you.
A whole new level of trolling.
|
|
|
You thought Grammar Nazis were bad before? Now when you "annoy" or "offend" them with your imperfect grammar and spelling they will be able to call the law on you.
A whole new level of trolling.
You must be the change you want to see in the world.
-Mahatma Gandhi
#52
No, Grammar Nazis moving to Arizona to exploit the new law would be a whole new level of trolling :PYou thought Grammar Nazis were bad before? Now when you "annoy" or "offend" them with your imperfect grammar and spelling they will be able to call the law on you.
A whole new level of trolling.
Originally Posted by Starblade
That point is moot.
One could simply claim that the 'Grammar Nazis' are "annoying" or "offending" oneself.
It takes a lot of argument
to convince most people
that they are lying.
I found your post to be 'annoying' LoCo, get ready for Arizone style police justice!
@Moe: Ohhh I’m fine with that kind of thing being covered, but as buguba points out this law is pretty broad, in fact applying any existing harassment laws to the internet results in them being too broad. Starfisher really touched on what I was saying much better. There are so many situations where weather something is offensive enough to be considered harassment is so subjective on the internet that it all falls apart. I agree there are some obvious situations where the loopholes need to be closed (as you pointed out). But many laws like this aren't just targeting those loopholes.
It also still doesn’t address the international issue. Virtually every internet law ever is going to fall afoul of this sooner or later because people can safely do things from beyond the reach of the law. This used to be the purview of big crime bosses and nobody else. Now depending on your own country and where the target lives anyone right down to the average joe can do it. he greatest issue policing has had since it's inception just became mainstream.
I don't know what i'm talking about, ignore me.
Thousands of years ago, Egyptians worshipped what would become our ordinary housecat. The cats have never forgotten this.
Don't think you are safe LoCo. The US already extradited one New Zealander about their internet activities and US law absolutely loves precedent.
#57
I seriously doubt they are going to clog the justice system in Arizona with petty Internet taunts. You guys are taking it to the extreme and thinking it'll be fact.
I've seen this defense a lot lately. Just because they put an absurd provision in a law doesn't mean they'll bother to enforce it! Well maybe they wont, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a bad thing to have on the books. Having it there sets a bad precedent, and nothing is stopping someone from having it enforced if they want it to be.
Co-founder of Homeworld:@
Open to new members
Wait wait, you saying that i will be able to sue, if i'm annoyed by someone. So what if i think this law is trolling and annoying me, i can sue the law maker for trolling me with a stupid law?
No qaurter back men, only forward or we will hold this line forever!!!
[IMG][/IMG]
Row Row Row Fight the Powha
#60
Of course not. At some level, like with any law, the offence has to be serious enough for the party in question to bring it to the courts. Considering the amount of money involved with prosecution and defense, the likelihood that anyone will be tried on the grounds of an annoying Facebook post is about zero to none.I seriously doubt they are going to clog the justice system in Arizona with petty Internet taunts. You guys are taking it to the extreme and thinking it'll be fact.
Like Siber said though, its existence still sets a bad precedent. It shows a lack of understanding on the part of Arizona's government concerning how the internet operates. Moreover, in a genuine case of harassment, it significantly lowers the standard for what a "reasonable person" would have to deal with. In some ways though, this is almost like the PATRIOT act (albeit an extreme example). The likelihood that the government would ever tape your phone calls is about zero to none. That doesn't change the fact that it can happen.
"You must be swift as the coursing river, with all the force of a great typhoon, with all the strength of a raging fire, mysterious as the dark side of the moon."
#61
Most Countries already have Online victimisation laws which this amendment essentially is.
#62
I didn't miss anything, but apparently you did... Instead of just posting what I thought was the real information, I actually checked what other US federal and state laws said, and found that "annoy" is used in federal law, as well as a lot of state laws, like Massachusets, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, New York, and Pennsylvania (and that is just from the states I checked, there may be others as well). So, as I said, there is nothing unusual about this at all. Your thread title is misleading and needlessly panic inducing.
This is just so ridiculously wrong that it is not even funny.
It doesn't set any precedent at all. It simply brings Arizona into line with other states and federal law.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that
heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
#63
You're right. I'm actually really sorry about all this too, because it looks like all of this is significantly less of an issue than I thought it was. I went around doing more research on the matter to see if there were any other state laws that were similar to this Arizona amendment, and the majority them are just about identical. Just as I was about to write some big response on how you were wrong too.Most Countries already have Online victimisation laws which this amendment essentially is.
I'm sorry you guys, it looks like I made this out to be a bigger deal than it really is. Maybe I've watched one too many TV shows where the justice system gets so wrapped up on one little word that the bad guy gets away. My mistake.
You're right. I think I got sucked into the whole ZOMG GOVURNMENT WANTS TO CONTROL TEH INTERWEBZ thing. I posted this before I saw your response, but you're still correct.I didn't miss anything, but apparently you did... Instead of just posting what I thought was the real information, I actually checked what other US federal and state laws said, and found that "annoy" is used in federal law, as well as a lot of state laws, like Massachusets, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, New York, and Pennsylvania (and that is just from the states I checked, there may be others as well). So, as I said, there is nothing unusual about this at all. Your thread title is misleading and needlessly panic inducing.
If anyone else has any doubts, take a look at some of the harassment laws throughout the United States here: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...ment-laws.aspx . The majority of states cover the concept of "annoyance" through electronic devices or otherwise in their laws. I apologize for the misinformation.
#64
Glad that's been cleared up.
Just out of interest, I don't really know what classification of misdemeanour it would come under. I was wondering surely these misdemeanours, at least with the less extreme cases, could be handled with an immediate fine? In the UK system cases are divided into two categories- those that are dealt with out of court with a summary fine and those that are required to go to court (indictments). Is there a similar classification under the US system? Even if they were to start clamping down on offenders, I doubt it would create a huge number of extra court cases. They just generally don't seem to big enough deals to waste the court's time. Plus all the legal expenses? Sheesh.Of course not. At some level, like with any law, the offence has to be serious enough for the party in question to bring it to the courts. Considering the amount of money involved with prosecution and defense, the likelihood that anyone will be tried on the grounds of an annoying Facebook post is about zero to none.
awww! I was aiming for the funny. I know I should have included a smiley of some sort but none of them seemed to fit the mood I was aiming for.
Some people here do not have any sense of humour at all, it's true, TDATL.
And frankly, I'm very surprised a word as vague as "annoy" has precedent for being used in laws. It just strikes me as being too open to interpretation.
Let's sail in this sea of charms
Let's drown underneath the stars
Oh, it might not be common. But it will be possible to do that. The law just says that someone has to be offended or even annoyed, doesn't have to be the intended recipient. It makes a great tool for getting someone punished if you can't find anything else on them, just dig up a facebook post and say it offended or annoyed you and suddenly they're a criminal.I seriously doubt they are going to clog the justice system in Arizona with petty Internet taunts. You guys are taking it to the extreme and thinking it'll be fact.
"We are the most civilised race in the world. We have more exquisite ways to kill than any other."Lord Vraneth the Cruel, master of Har GanethFormerly DarkelfLord
#68
@darkelf, that's not what the law says at all. Unless the prosecution can prove that you intended to cause offence then there is no crime. It's quite clear in the text of the proposed amendment, please read it.
#69
Hi can we stop talking about law as if we have no fucking idea how it works. Seriously you guys interpret laws in the most naive ways.
Last edited by Black; 6th Apr 12 at 11:47 AM.
#70
Still not sure how this doesn't cover Westboro Baptist Church.
#71
The Westboro Baptist Church is probably sitting right on the borderline of legality with a lot of their shit. It would be an interesting test case if they were to be prosecuted under the federal statute, but it's probably not going to happen soon. Government agencies tend not to like taking on risky or borderline cases for fear of creating case law precedents.
TBH I think Arizona is just being meta as hell.
I guess day 1 DLC was too casual for EA, so let's start doing 8-month-early DLC! - Shuma
Eagerly awaiting DoW3 with mod tools. You hear me Relic?!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
