Arizona bill criminalizes internet speech intended to “annoy” or “harrass”

Posted by on April 2, 2012

by Muriel Kane (Raw Story)

The Arizona state legislature apparently finds it difficult to tell the difference between a telephone and the Internet and has passed a bill that would extend the definition of harassment originally devised for phone conversations to anything communicated or published online.

As summarized by the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, “The bill is sweepingly broad, and would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’ as well as certain sexual speech. Because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying.”

The bill is currently awaiting Governor Jan Brewer’s signature, and the Media Coalition, which defends first amendment rights in the media, has sent her a letter outlining some of the problems with the legislation.

“H.B. 2549 would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’” the letter notes. … ‘Lewd’ and ‘profane’ are not defined in the statute or by reference. ‘Lewd’ is generally understood to mean lusty or sexual in nature and ‘profane’ is generally defined as disrespectful or irreverent about religion or religious practices.”

It appears that the Arizona law could criminalize the recent interview in which Meghan McCain — daughter of Arizona senator John McCain — told Playboy, “I’m strictly dickly. I can’t help it. I love sex and I love men.” Or any random atheist saying, “There is no god” — provided some official was prepared to conclude it was done with the intention of annoying believers.

The letter goes on to condemn the law for its broadness, saying, “H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person.”

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is particularly alarmed, because comic books often have the explicit purpose of challenging prejudices and preconceptions — and have often been subject to censorship attempts in the past.

“If passed, the law could create vulnerabilities for cartoonists and publishers who publish material online intended to shock, satirize, and criticize,” the group writes. “Beyond the example of the Mohammad cartoons listed in the Media Coalition letter, the taboo-pushing work of cartoonists like R. Crumb, Johnny Ryan, and Ivan Brunetti would potentially be vulnerable to prosecution, as could incendiary works such as Frank Miller’s Holy Terror and Dave Sim’s Cerebus. Similarly, the culture of message boards, within and beyond comics, would be imperiled.”

 

If you would like to support our efforts, please consider making a donation.

To submit an article for publication, send a note to [email protected].

Disclaimer: The information on this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only. There is no intent, express or implied, to promote illegal activities. We assume no liability for the potential actions of any third party. All data compiled here has been gathered from, and is available through, independent public sources.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Last modified on April 2, 2012

Categories: Animal Liberation, Police State
No Comments »

« | Home | »

Leave a Reply