Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    Default Is an Anti-Trolling Law Constitutional

    My question involves criminal law for the state of: Arizona

    I read recently that Arizona passed a law that bans "trolling" online. Apparently, in Arizona there is a law that says that it is a crime to use an electronic device to post comments with the "intent to offend". How exactly is it possible to ban speech that is "intended to offend" though? Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,728

    Default Re: How is This Not Unconstitutional

    It may be but a law is presumed valid until successfully challenged in court.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,413

    Default Re: How is This Not Unconstitutional

    I would say that it is unconstitutional. But it would have to be adjudicated to the higher courts to be overturned.

    Hell, if it were national wide, I have a few trolls here on this forum that I would prosecute.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Pugetopolis
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: How is This Not Unconstitutional

    Quote Quoting Steve418
    View Post
    My question involves criminal law for the state of: Arizona

    I read recently that Arizona passed a law that bans "trolling" online. Apparently, in Arizona there is a law that says that it is a crime to use an electronic device to post comments with the "intent to offend"
    Step 1): verify that you yourself were in fact not trolled.

    I can't find mention of that law in any search. Do you have a link?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,728

    Default Re: How is This Not Unconstitutional

    Quote Quoting MaltbyMark
    View Post
    Step 1): verify that you yourself were in fact not trolled.

    I can't find mention of that law in any search. Do you have a link?
    https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/04/tech/...law/index.html

    h.b. 2549

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    419

    Default Re: How is This Not Unconstitutional

    The CNN report talked about the first version of the bill that the governor didn't sign and sent back. The version that was actually enacted is not the same. It was signed into law in May 2012.

    Criminal Code 13-2921
    A. A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass or with knowledge that the person is harassing another person, the person:
    1. Anonymously or otherwise contacts, communicates or causes a communication with another person by verbal, electronic, mechanical, telegraphic, telephonic or written means in a manner that harasses.
    2. Continues to follow another person in or about a public place for no legitimate purpose after being asked to desist.
    3. Repeatedly commits an act or acts that harass another person.
    4. Surveils or causes another person to surveil a person for no legitimate purpose.
    5. On more than one occasion makes a false report to a law enforcement, credit or social service agency.
    6. Interferes with the delivery of any public or regulated utility to a person.
    B. A person commits harassment against a public officer or employee if the person, with intent to harass, files a nonconsensual lien against any public officer or employee that is not accompanied by an order or a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction authorizing the filing of the lien or is not issued by a governmental entity or political subdivision or agency pursuant to its statutory authority, a validly licensed utility or water delivery company, a mechanics' lien claimant or an entity created under covenants, conditions, restrictions or declarations affecting real property.
    C. Harassment under subsection A is a class 1 misdemeanor.  Harassment under subsection B is a class 5 felony.
    D. This section does not apply to an otherwise lawful demonstration, assembly or picketing.
    E. For the purposes of this section, “harassment” means conduct that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed and the conduct in fact seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    3,227

    Default Re: How is This Not Unconstitutional

    It was a 2012 bill. I don't think it even passed.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Pugetopolis
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: How is This Not Unconstitutional

    Quote Quoting LegalWriter
    View Post
    The CNN report talked about the first version of the bill that the governor didn't sign and sent back. The version that was actually enacted is not the same. It was signed into law in May 2012.

    Criminal Code 13-2921
    A. A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass or with knowledge that the person is harassing another person, the person:
    1. Anonymously or otherwise contacts, communicates or causes a communication with another person by verbal, electronic, mechanical, telegraphic, telephonic or written means in a manner that harasses.
    2. Continues to follow another person in or about a public place for no legitimate purpose after being asked to desist.
    3. Repeatedly commits an act or acts that harass another person.
    4. Surveils or causes another person to surveil a person for no legitimate purpose.
    5. On more than one occasion makes a false report to a law enforcement, credit or social service agency.
    6. Interferes with the delivery of any public or regulated utility to a person.
    B. A person commits harassment against a public officer or employee if the person, with intent to harass, files a nonconsensual lien against any public officer or employee that is not accompanied by an order or a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction authorizing the filing of the lien or is not issued by a governmental entity or political subdivision or agency pursuant to its statutory authority, a validly licensed utility or water delivery company, a mechanics' lien claimant or an entity created under covenants, conditions, restrictions or declarations affecting real property.
    C. Harassment under subsection A is a class 1 misdemeanor.  Harassment under subsection B is a class 5 felony.
    D. This section does not apply to an otherwise lawful demonstration, assembly or picketing.
    E. For the purposes of this section, “harassment” means conduct that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed and the conduct in fact seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person.
    Yup, I knew about that seven year old law that does nothing like the OP claims.

    A nice history of the bill: http://mediacoalition.org/arizona-hb2549/

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,728

    Default Re: How is This Not Unconstitutional

    Quote Quoting MaltbyMark
    View Post
    Yup, I knew about that seven year old law that does nothing like the OP claims.

    A nice history of the bill: http://mediacoalition.org/arizona-hb2549/
    there are a lot of problems with that law, first and foremost is how to prove intent.

    But intent isn’t really required. It can be presumed if the accused is made aware the accuser feels they are being harassed and doesn’t stop otherwise legal activities.


    Hell, based on that law, every robocall is unlawful harassment. Every bill collector seeking payment is criminal harassment.

    Quote Quoting MaltbyMark
    View Post
    Yup, I knew about that seven year old law that does nothing like the OP claims.

    A nice history of the bill: http://mediacoalition.org/arizona-hb2549/
    Yet you said you could find nothing..


    The law posted does fit within the ops original statement. A1 fits the bill.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: How is This Not Unconstitutional

    Quote Quoting Steve418
    View Post
    I read recently that Arizona passed a law that bans "trolling" online. Apparently, in Arizona there is a law that says that it is a crime to use an electronic device to post comments with the "intent to offend". How exactly is it possible to ban speech that is "intended to offend" though? Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
    I highlighted the word "apparently" because it signals to a reader that you haven't actually read the law about which you're asking. If that's correct, I don't see how you could intelligently wonder whether the law is or isn't unconstitutional.

    That being the case, I googled "Arizona trolling law" and found a reference to House Bill 2549, which, in 2012, sought to amend sections 13-2916 and 13-2923 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Rather than read the Bill or worry about whether the bill passed, I looked up those two statutes.

    Section 13-2916(A) states that "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten or harass a specific person or persons, to do any of the following:

    1. Direct any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act to the person in an electronic communication.

    2. Threaten to inflict physical harm to any person or property in any electronic communication.

    3. Otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous, unwanted or unsolicited electronic communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of the person at the place where the communications were received."

    Section 13-2923 is a basic anti-stalking law.

    So...now that you've had an opportunity actually to read the laws, what is your argument that either or both are unconstitutional? Also, are you claiming that either or both are facially unconstitutional? If not, then I'd agree that it's easy to envision hypothetical scenarios in which either law might be unconstitutional as applied. However, unless you're aware of a situation in which the law actually was applied in such a situation, that it's hypothetically possible to apply a law in an unconstitutional way is of no moment.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Business Regulation: How do Anti-Spamming and Anti-Phishing Laws Affect Email Campaigns
    By gordytax5 in forum Business Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-07-2016, 02:19 PM
  2. Trolling As a an Occupation
    By LandSurveyor in forum Banter
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-26-2015, 06:39 AM
  3. Trolling Spammer Alert
    By souperdave in forum Banter
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-07-2012, 10:44 PM
  4. Slander: Internet Trolling and Slander
    By Stevenell in forum Defamation, Slander And Libel
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-09-2011, 05:43 PM
  5. Computer Crime: Trolling an Internet Forum
    By mark80 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-19-2010, 05:32 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources