Arizona bill could criminalize internet trolling

[JStraitiff]

Originally Posted by decypher

Nice troll post!

Originally Posted by Xaios

Damn, beat me to it.

glad you caught that haha

but really trolls are not a big deal. If you're an adult heres a really easy way to get rid of them:

[Konfyouzd]

America: We make laws to avoid having to use common sense. If there are already laws against stalking why do we need another? If someone gets stalked through ANY means doesn't it all boil down to stalking--which we've already outlawed?

[pink freud]

Originally Posted by Raaaaal13

This is ridiculous. I hate living in this state sometimes.

Especially since you live in TrOLLESON Arizona

[Explorer]

Originally Posted by Konfyouzd

America: We make laws to avoid having to use common sense. If there are already laws against stalking why do we need another? If someone gets stalked through ANY means doesn't it all boil down to stalking--which we've already outlawed?

It's because people then argue that a particular behavior isn't stalking. "Oh, I just posted on the internet that I think her little sister should always keep her eyes open, because one never knows when someone will grab her in the laundry room of her apartment building at 4321 Main Street and do... well, whatever might be done. I wasn't actually physically near her, so I wasn't technically stalking."

Now, the law is clarifying that these things, previously not well defined, are definitely stalking. That ends the debate, and makes it possible to protect people when being stalking/threatened/harassed in this way.

[Edika]

Since it is a law of state of your country I don't want to interfere much but making a law like so, from what Max and Explorer argued and from the uncanny ability lawyers in the US have to exploit legal loopholes and taking into account the target of this law it doesn't seem like a blow to the first amendment of your constitution. I can't imagine stalkers being let go just because digital stalking and harassment is not covered by law.
Even if it is a case of just trolling, meaning writing a few stupid and annoying comments on fb, forums and other social media should not be grounds for someone to be persecuted even if the complainer is actually a whiny butt hurt bitch (not necessarily of the female variety) that is offended by the air blowing in their direction (which seems to be a lot in your continent). An simple examination of this case should immediately consider it unworthy of further attention.
If on the other people that take trolling too far have some form of persecution then I don't mind seeing them suffer the consequence of their actions. Not in the same league of course as stalkers and as mentioned before not by a couple of stupid posts. Thinking that no one will come after them due to anonymity entitles him/her to act like a dick is not freedom of expression. It's being an uncivilized little prick that shows that if there isn't someone breathing down their neck they will act like so.

It seems though that Arizona has a big problem with stalkers. Another state to avoid!

[Explorer]

Originally Posted by Edika

Even if it is a case of just trolling, meaning writing a few stupid and annoying comments on fb, forums and other social media should not be grounds for someone to be persecuted even if the complainer is actually a whiny butt hurt bitch (not necessarily of the female variety) that is offended by the air blowing in their direction (which seems to be a lot in your continent). An simple examination of this case should immediately consider it unworthy of further attention.

I believe the body of the law is available online, but as spectacular and attention-grabbing as the headline is, I think it is incorrect.

My one reading of the law when I went looking for it laid out what it was about, including a definition of stalking. I can't imagine how one could apply the law to trolling and offensive posts without the other components of the stalking description being in place.

It's amazing how context is so easy to ignore in an internet discussion, isn't it?

[r3tr0sp3ct1v3]

I honestly think it is a good idea. To the people who defend trolling? It's pointless and childish (defending and doing it)

Kids have killed themselves over it, so i don't see the problem of stopping people from doing further damage.

Kids these days..

[Razzy]

Originally Posted by r3tr0sp3ct1v3

I honestly think it is a good idea. To the people who defend trolling? It's pointless and childish (defending and doing it)

Kids have killed themselves over it, so i don't see the problem of stopping people from doing further damage.

Kids these days..

I doubt very much that kids have offed themselves because some meanie on the internet said their youtube video sucked.

[ghstofperdition]

^ No but I'm sure kids have offed themselves due to homophobic trolling and harassment online.

[JStraitiff]

^ More commonly kids will be facing many other obstacles at home and at school. They are already bummed and the harassment from real life bullies as well as internet comments tend to set them over the edge.

[r3tr0sp3ct1v3]

^ mhm so that funny comment you make about someone being gay could hurt their feelings. I just think this generation is too insensitive.

[Guitarman700]

Originally Posted by r3tr0sp3ct1v3

^ mhm so that funny comment you make about someone being gay could hurt their feelings. I just think this generation is too insensitive.

There's nothing funny about homophobia. Get a clue, you sound like an ignorant, out of touch old man yelling at kids for playing in the street.

[r3tr0sp3ct1v3]

Originally Posted by Guitarman700

There's nothing funny about homophobia. Get a clue, you sound like an ignorant, out of touch old man yelling at kids for playing in the street.

Excuse me? Funny to the person posting. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Sorry if you can intelligently read a comment.

Homophobia isn't funny at all. I just meant that the person commenting may think it's funny.

[Guitarman700]

Originally Posted by r3tr0sp3ct1v3

Excuse me? Funny to the person posting. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Sorry if you can intelligently read a comment.

Homophobia isn't funny at all. I just meant that the person commenting may think it's funny.

This isn't about being sensitive, it's about a bill that radically infringes on our rights and is open to massive amounts of abuse. Sorry you can't, you know, read.

[r3tr0sp3ct1v3]

Originally Posted by Guitarman700

This isn't about being sensitive, it's about a bill that radically infringes on our rights and is open to massive amounts of abuse. Sorry you can't, you know, read.

Well if i couldn't read, how could I comment back? But yeah enough bickering, I was just merely making an unrelated statement that this generation has become full of insensitive kids.
Sorry for snapping.

[Lern2swim]

Horrible idea. I don't support infringing upon free speech in any way (and, yes, that includes "hate speech." Pretty much any speech except for the cliche "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" type). Words do not hurt people unless they let them. That's simply fact. If we stopped having government coddle people and provide them with "protection" from words, then maybe, just maybe, people would become more capable of coping with how words affect them in the first place. I'd much rather live in a world where, for instance, a gay person could get called "fag" and have it roll off their back and not affect them at all, because they have the confidence to let that happen, rather than live in a world where government dictates numerous things that are not okay to say.

Keep in mind, acting, in conjunction with words, is still acting. And actions can affect people negatively. So, someone saying racist things, in my opinion, let the idiot do whatever they want. That racist person going the extra step into action and, say, denying a minority a job, solely based on their race; that's an action and should be completely open to legal action.

I think this would create a world full of much more empowered individuals than what we've been heading toward.

[JStraitiff]

i didnt make any comments about homosexuality?

[Necris]

Originally Posted by Razzy

I doubt very much that kids have offed themselves because some meanie on the internet said their youtube video sucked.

Lori Drew News - The New York Times

[Guitarman700]

Originally Posted by Necris

Lori Drew News - The New York Times

This. People don't realize how damn cruel other people are online.

[ghstofperdition]

It's one of those laws where the intention is good, but there's no way of implementing without trampling on constitutional rights. In which case, I'd rather not have it. But if it's on the Governors desk already, I doubt what my opinions on it are matter anyways since I"m sure it will be signed in to law. (disregarding the fact that I don't live in AZ, but one state to the left of it rather)

Maybe people in AZ will get lucky and a judge rules it unconstitutional and strikes it down. But knowing how AZ rolls politically (having lived there myself at one point), it's just not gonna happen...

Edit:
That said, I do think that cracking down on trolls is of the greatest importance. Too many failed, miserable asshats are getting their jollies torturing the .... out of random people online. The cracking down needs to come from the owners of the sites themselves though, not the government.

[The Uncreator]

^ Agreed.

Some people take it too far, to the point where its pure malice. But the bill can and would be abused, so the majority is better off without it I believe.

[Lern2swim]

Originally Posted by The Uncreator

^ Agreed.

Some people take it too far, to the point where its pure malice. But the bill can and would be abused, so the majority is better off without it I believe.

And, because even pure malice cannot hurt anyone in word form, I wish we'd err on the side of just leaving those pathetic individuals to their sad malicious lives.

[The Uncreator]

^Wrong.

The whole 'sticks and stones may break my bones' thing doesnt actually hold up. When a person is in a compromised mental state (whether they know it or not, be it serious or average depression) simple words aimed at that person can hurt leading to something as extreme as death. Fact. Even putting aside that criteria, a perfectly normal person can be harmed by words. No, they dont leave bullet holes or physical trauma - true - and its the person choice ultimately to view those words (at least in most cases I would believe) but underestimating the power of words, for good or evil, is a foolish thing.

Malice in word form can hurt, generally the average person can deflect it but there are those people such as children, teenagers, etc. who are more susceptible to their influence. Those sad individual who lead those malicious lives? sometimes they become a part of your life without your consent, its inevitable. For most of us, easily deterred or a rare occurrence, but for some not so much.

I don't support this bill, but I believe it has intentions which are respectable to a certain degree. We are still however, better off without it.

[Lern2swim]

Originally Posted by The Uncreator

^Wrong.

The whole 'sticks and stones may break my bones' thing doesnt actually hold up. When a person is in a compromised mental state (whether they know it or not, be it serious or average depression) simple words aimed at that person can hurt leading to something as extreme as death. Fact. Even putting aside that criteria, a perfectly normal person can be harmed by words. No, they dont leave bullet holes or physical trauma - true - and its the person choice ultimately to view those words (at least in most cases I would believe) but underestimating the power of words, for good or evil, is a foolish thing.

Malice in word form can hurt, generally the average person can deflect it but there are those people such as children, teenagers, etc. who are more susceptible to their influence. Those sad individual who lead those malicious lives? sometimes they become a part of your life without your consent, its inevitable. For most of us, easily deterred or a rare occurrence, but for some not so much.

I don't support this bill, but I believe it has intentions which are respectable to a certain degree. We are still however, better off without it.

I disagree that what you're stating as facts are facts. Read my previous post for my opinion on the topic. All we do by perpetuating the idea that words hurt is create an environment where more and more people are incapable of dealing with words aimed at them.

I'm sorry, it is not the words that lead to death, it is individuals' inability to cope with the words that leads to death. Shitty situation? Yes. You know what makes it worse? That's right, perpetuating the idea that words hurt.

You want proof that what you're saying are facts are not, in fact, true, that the problem is actually that our society is perpetuating this idea? Go and call a woman that doesn't speak english a ..... See how she reacts. The meaning of a word is transmitted by one person, and received by another. In order for them to be given any meaning at all, both ends of that equation are required. If, rather than having the government force everyone to "play nice" we simply taught people to to realize, "Gee, this person insulted me, but they're an idiot, so I really don't have to care what their opinion is" we'd all be a hell of a lot better off.

[The Uncreator]

The inability to cope and the damage the words cause are one in the same. If you have the ability to cope, then the words are negated. If not, they become weapons.

Its like saying your wearing a bulletproof vest, guns cant kill you. But there are other ways you can be shot, and there just as fatal. You can sit there and think "I have these immunity words, so everyone does"- No they don't, and dont be ignorant and think that. Should they? Yes! Of course, but there are those who simply just do not have that. There brains can understand the concept even, but its just conditioned into their behavioral reactions to be affected by these words.

Plus, you speak as if everyone has the ability to realize that since a person is just viciously verbally assaulting you for no reason, then they are better left alone. Not everyone has this area of "common sense".

Not all people react the same way, see things similar, or are able to come to these deductions quickly and rationally. It's the duty of the strong to protect the weak I believe, so I think the idea of having some kind of punishment where this has can lead to serious injury is a sound idea, its just not even close to being realized in the form of this bill.

To use guns as a metaphor again, when the NRA says guns dont kill people, people kill people - you know what? to quote Eddie Izzard "I think the gun helps...". So no, words to do not "kill" them, but they sure did help in some cases. So it shouldn't be ignored, to do so is just stupidity.

Better yet, the government should stay out of it, as a medical/ therapeutic/ scientific/ or other approach could better yield proper conditioning and shielding of those individuals. Which I believe is something along the lines you suggested.