Loss of Freedom Archives - Page 9 of 33

Text of Arizona HB 2549 – the Internet Censorship Bill

HOUSE BILL 2549
an Act

amending sections 13-2916 and 13-2923, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to electronic or digital devices.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 13-2916, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-2916. Use of an electronic or digital device to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend; classification; definition

A. It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a telephone 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 is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

B. Any offense committed by use of a telephone an electronic or digital device as set forth in this section is deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone call or calls communications originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

C. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

D. For the purposes of this section, “electronic or digital device” includes any wired or wireless communication device and multimedia storage device.

Sec. 2. Section 13-2923, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-2923. Stalking; classification; definitions

A. A person commits stalking if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person and if that conduct either:

1. Would cause a reasonable person to fear for the person’s safety or the safety of that person’s immediate family member and that person in fact fears for their the person’s safety or the safety of that person’s immediate family member.

2. Would cause a reasonable person to fear death of that person or that person’s immediate family member and that person in fact fears death of that person or that person’s immediate family member.

B. Stalking under subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section is a class 5 felony. Stalking under subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section is a class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. “Course of conduct”:

(a) Means any of the following:

(i) Maintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person or directing verbal, written or other threats, whether express or implied, to a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short, but

(ii) Using any electronic, digital or global positioning system device to surveil a specific person or a specific person’s internet or wireless activity continuously for twelve hours or more or on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short.

(b) Does not include constitutionally protected activity or other activity authorized by law, the other person, the other person’s authorized representative or if the other person is a minor, the minor’s parent or guardian.

2. “Immediate family member” means a spouse, parent, child or sibling or any other person who regularly resides in a person’s household or resided in a person’s household within the past six months.

Arizona Legislature Passes Broad Internet Censorship Bill

Today the Arizona state legislature passed House Bill 2549 making it illegal to use or post “offensive” language online. Although passed under the guise of being an anti-bullying bill, House Bill 2549, if signed by Governor Brewer, would effectively amount to censorship of any content state officials deem “offensive”. This censorship would apply to any and all electronic communications including articles, editorials, blog comments, illustrations, cartoons, and even Facebook wall posts and status updates. The censorship likely also extends to emails and text messages, based on the broad language of the bill. The pertinent part of House Bill 2549 reads as follows:

Use of an electronic or digital device to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, classification; definition

A. It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a telephone 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 is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

B. Any offense committed by use of a telephone an electronic or digital device as set forth in this section is deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone call or calls communications originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

C. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

D. For the purposes of this section, “electronic or digital device” includes any wired or wireless communication device and multimedia storage device.

Under House Bill 2549, it would be a crime to communicate via electronic means with the intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend another. It would also be a crime to use electronic means to communicate obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person. Even worse is that Arizona does not define many of the terms identified in the bill, meaning that state officials could define “offensive” as anything they don’t like. As a result, this law could effectively be used to censor any statement that government officials disagree with.

Further, the bill is not limited to one on one conversation between two individuals. The speech does not even need to be unwanted, just “offensive”. The recipient of the communication does not actually need to feel offended, nor must the communication be intended to annoy or offend the reader, the subject of the communication, or any other specific person. As a result, a substantial amount of everyday communication could be deemed “offensive” and censored.

Under the legislation, Rush Limbaugh could have been censored and prosecuted for his recent statements against a Georgetown law student if he intended that his comments were offensive. Many late night talk show hosts could be held criminally responsible for using racy, lewd or otherwise offensive language. Ann Coulter’s books criticising the left could be censored, as could the entire cast of Glee for making statements against the right. The works of any novelist such as Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, or Dan Brown could be censored if their text were found to be “annoying” or “offensive”. All romance novels would definitely be censored for using lewd and lascivious language. All movies with “offensive” language would be censored, as well as electronically stored music, comedy acts, and images. Many political blogs would be censored, along with some media organizations. In short, there is little that this legislation would not cover.

This legislation is yet another move by the government to intrude into and control its citizens everyday lives. Since the legislature conveniently failed to define such ambiguous terms such as “offensive” or “annoying”, it would essentially give the government carte blanche to censor whatever speech the government didn’t like. Not only that, but you could be charged with a CRIME for saying something that big brother doesn’t agree with. Pretty scary.

Whatever happened to “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” ?

Light Bulb Restrictions Begin January 1, 2012

The Hill: “New light bulb efficiency standards will begin phasing in on Jan. 1 despite intense opposition from conservatives, who have blasted the rules as a textbook unnecessary federal regulation. While Republicans secured inclusion of a measure blocking funding for enforcement of the standards in a year-end spending bill, energy efficiency groups say the provision will have little practical impact. The Energy Department rules will nonetheless go into effect at the start of 2012. ‘The

[spending bill] cut funding for enforcement, however the law is still in effect,” said Jack Gillis, spokesman for the Consumer Federation of America. “It is our expectation that companies will still comply with the law’.”

There’s No Reason To Ban Cellphone Use While Driving

Investors Business Daily: “A federal agency is calling for a nationwide ban on all cellphone use while driving. Once again, Washington busybodies are exaggerating a problem because it happens to be a behavior they don’t approve of. . . . a 2009 NHTSA study found that 80% of all car wrecks are caused by drivers eating or drinking — not cellphone use — with coffee-guzzling the top offender. Then there’s this. According to federal data, traffic deaths have fallen from 2.1 per 100 million vehicle miles in 1990, when virtually no one had a cellphone, to 1.1 in 2009, when almost everyone does.”

Justice Stevens Reflects On The Unpopularity Of Kelo

ABA Journal: Retired Justice John Paul Stevens says his 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London was so unpopular that he was criticized by fellow bridge players.

A duplicate bridge player, Stevens has silver life master status for the points he has amassed with the American Contract Bridge League, according to a 2009 story (PDF) in its Daily Bulletin. He tells the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) that he was merely applying 50-year-old precedent when he wrote the opinion allowing the city of New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to seize property for economic development by a private developer. “It’s the most unpopular opinion I ever wrote, no doubt about it,” he acknowledged.

“I had people at a bridge game stop me and ask, ‘How could you have written that opinion? We thought you were a good judge, but we learned otherwise,’ ” Stevens told the newspaper. “But you can’t explain the whole law of eminent domain to your bridge opponents.”

Previous 8910 Next