iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Bianca Bosker
GET UPDATES FROM Bianca:

Arizona Bill That Would Criminalize Online Speech To Be Revamped After Outcry

Posted: 04/ 4/2012 6:14 pm Updated: 04/ 5/2012 12:52 pm

Arizona House Bill 2549

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.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly listed the penalties for a class 1 misdemeanor.

FOLLOW TECH

From our partners


 
 
  • Comments
  • 348
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
12:33 PM on 04/29/2013
Although hate speech is uncalled for and never necessary, making a law against hate speech on the internet and via any electronic device is against our rights under the First Amendment. If Arizona were to pass this law, then anything conversation via text, email, or social network could be at risk even if both parties were joking around. Threatening someone over the internet is wrong and I agree about that, however that is not covered under the First Amendment like the other kinds of speech that they are trying to prevent. If someone feels like they are being harassed or threatened over the internet, then authorities needs to be involved. They do not need to be involved over something silly or two people teasing each other jokingly about their favorite football team.
-Taylor Carlson
ilovemyrights
Shooter and gun owner.
02:39 PM on 04/04/2013
So this speech control is worth is worth fighting against but gun control is worth fighting for... Just trying to get it all straight.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
09:50 PM on 04/25/2012
That's a pretty vague law. Even the ones that are specific aren't really enforced anyway.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
12:29 PM on 04/16/2012
“..unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend...."

It is the "annoy or offend" that is so out of line. You can annoy and offend a creationist by saying evolution is a fact, or the same with an occupier by saying most of the people in the top 1% got their money through hard work and sacrifice.

Being annoyed and offended is part of living in a Democracy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
12:21 PM on 04/16/2012
This law allows for far more speech than do some of the Huffington Post moderators.
06:51 PM on 04/09/2012
Hey, Gov. Bruiser: Screw! Screw! Screw!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robin Eublind
11:53 AM on 04/09/2012
Keep in mind that progressive change is very offensive to conservatives as well as the plutocracy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kinogod
word farmer
11:14 AM on 04/07/2012
Wait just a f#%king minute! I guarantee that the aeech pee won't let me write anything annoying and profane. When I do, which is as often as I can, the aeech pee taste-master-censors "do not approve" my message. To prove my point I will post an annoying and profane message atop this one. If it is not there, the aeech pee should remove this whole story.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dh Barr
Bringing Clues to the Clueless
07:21 PM on 04/06/2012
There is no Constitutional right to not be offended, and FYI making threats (no matter what the medium) is already illegal.
photo
Tracy Elise
Mystic Mother & Found=Her, Phoenix Goddess Temple
06:50 PM on 04/06/2012
We, as a temple and minority religion, are already suffering from being stripped of our freedom of speech here in Arizona. The Maricopa District Attorney stepped into our spiritual and healing activities, told the press that we used 'evasive language' to break the law, and sent SWAT teams to raid our sacred space last September WE are suffering the very real consequence of having the Arizona state and county and city governments force their language and the meaning of those words into our lives, thereby destroying our sacred space and our religious freedom. Trust me people, it is not fun when you discover that your government is NOT operating under the constitution, and that your cherished beliefs about democracy and freedom are simply a story from of past glory. Wake up! The U.S. as a 'free' country is sliding steadily into a police state, where you will be afraid, very afraid, to live as a free person. ""They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
photo
SpiralingDownward
Awake but tired
02:21 PM on 04/06/2012
go f--- yourselves lawmakers. Enough of this crybaby coddling. You get offended by comments on the internet? You must be new here.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cavemanjim
10:15 AM on 04/06/2012
Question: Is it currently illegal to say such things face-to-face? That is, NOT using a "digital or electronic device"?

Anyone?
09:42 AM on 04/06/2012
Nooo.... Arizona wouldn't pass an unconstitutional law
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
discoperry
09:42 AM on 04/06/2012
as evidenced by the huffpost deleting/banning "offensive" posters (me - 5 times) it is their right. it is their property not the "internet's"

go freely express yourself in your house, not in mine.
photo
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
Your BELIEFS do not trump my RIGHTS...
09:09 AM on 04/06/2012
Again, Big Brother is no longer content to simply watch you, he now wants to sit on your lap as you type on your keyboard..........................