Arizona, the State that I grew up in. The state that I have loved and
cherished my entire life. Almost every thing in my life that is good is
because of this wonderful state that I call home. Yet, some people are
trying to take away my freedom and my
rights that I so truly love about this state. Now the government has
gone a step forward to try to take away something that I hold very near
and dear. My right and freedom of speech. If I cannot speak my mind, if
it is made unlawful me to express my views the way that I want to
express them, then I am afraid I will no longer love my state. Our
freedom of speech and expression is in jeopardy here folks. This is not a
joke nor should this be taken lightly. I was born into a free state,
yet now I am afraid we are losing the very thing that constitutes us as
being "free". If I want to curse online or offend someone online, I
should have the right to do as such. To tell someone that they are
breaking a law just because they use profane language online is, don't
read this if you are against free speech or easily offended, A TOTAL CROCK OF BULLSHIT!



Arizona Bill That Would Criminalize Online Speech


You can still write annoying, profane things about this story -- at least for now.




Arizona legislators are expected to amend a controversial bill that
experts say could stifle free speech online and violate the First
Amendment. But free speech experts say the anticipated changes to the
bill -- which will be made before sending the legislation to Gov. Jan
Brewer (R) -- may not fix the major flaws in the proposal, which passed
both legislative houses last week.


“The Internet would shut down if this bill were judged to be
constitutionally sound -- everything annoying or offensive said online
would be caught up in it,” said Derek Bambauer, a professor at Brooklyn
Law School who specializes in Internet law and may work with the Arizona
ACLU to challenge the bill. “This is plainly unconstitutional.”


Arizona House Bill 2549
seeks to update an existing harassment statute that applies to
telephone calls by expanding the law to include communication via “any
electronic or digital device.” It additionally proposes to make it
“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.”



Experts say that according to the current text of the bill, trying to
annoy a friend with expletive-laden text messages mocking his or her
favorite basketball team would be classified as a class 1 misdemeanor --
which can carry a fine of up to $2,500, a maximum six-month jail sentence or up to three years' probation.
Emailing a graphic video to friends with the intent to offend them
would also be a criminal act, as would saying “go f--- yourself” in an
instant message conversation.



Legal experts argue that the proposed bill violates the First Amendment,
offers a vague definition of exactly what speech would be prohibited,
and stands to criminalize communication that is commonplace -- and
protected -- online.



“It could sweep a lot of potentially protected speech into the criminal
sphere. I’m not sure what ‘obscene,’ ‘lewd’ or ‘profane' language is.
Does that mean the law can be used to prosecute someone who forwards a
bad joke?” said Roy Gutterman, the director of the Tully Center for Free
Speech at Syracuse University. “The risk is that this heightened
sensitivity can chill speech and cause people not to express themselves
the way they might want to express themselves, even if it might offend
someone.”


The Media Coalition, an advocacy group representing content creators
such as the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording
Industry Association of America, has urged Brewer to veto the bill, which has also sparked outcry online from groups such as the hacker group Anonymous.



Three business days after the state legislature approved the bill,
Arizona state Rep. Ted Vogt, the bill's primary sponsor, told The
Huffington Post that legislators now plan to amend the bill before
sending it to Brewer. Though the revised text has not been released,
Vogt said it will be changed to clarify that the law would exempt
constitutionally protected speech, apply to situations in which “an
individual is targeting another specific individual or group of
individuals,” and specify that the communication must be “coupled with a
course of conduct.”



“We’re updating a pre-existing law to recognize that we use different
devices for communication now,” Vogt said. “If you are threatening me
via email, or via instant message, or via the phone, what’s the
difference? You are specifically threatening me and that’s the activity
that this bill has gone after in the past and will continue to go
after.”


Rep. Steve Farley (D-Phoenix), a co-sponsor of the bill, said that
the proposed legislation offers a much-needed defense against
threatening speech online and would be used primarily in domestic abuse
cases.


"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."



The bill was able to gather bipartisan support in the
Republican-controlled Arizona legislature, which has seen constant
divide between both parties in the last two years. The list of
co-sponsors spans the ideological spectrum, including House Minority
Leader Chad Campbell (D-Phoenix), who leans toward the liberal end, and
state Rep. Terri Proud (R-Tucson), one of the more conservative
legislators in the state.


Brewer’s spokesman, Matt Benson, said that the governor has not taken
a position on the bill, which is awaiting a final legislative vote.
Brewer traditionally does not take positions on bills before they reach
her desk.



Some law professors argue that the changes outlined by Vogt alone may do little to remedy the bill’s flaws.



“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.”



There’s also the trouble of enforcing the proposed law: Even if the bill
were to pass, Arizona could do little to punish digital wrongdoers who
are harassing Phoenicians or Tucsonans from across state lines, or
abroad.


John Celock contributed reporting



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/arizona-bill-criminalize-online-speech_n_1404038.html?ref=fb&;src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=3025883,b=facebook