In one of the most sweeping attacks on free speech in America, the Arizona legislature has passed a draconian bill that would criminalize speech on the Internet (“any electronic or digital device”) that prosecutors consider “obscene, lewd or profane language or . . . suggest[ing] a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify.’” The law is largely undefined and is in my view facially unconstitutional. The law would drive a stake in the heart of free speech. Yet, people like Bill Clinton have been calling for such a crackdown on Internet speech for years.
The inclusion of terms like “profane” (defined as including “Abusive, vulgar, or irreverent language” in standard dictionaries) is perfectly bizarre. I cannot imagine that the law was put through any serious legal review. The state will end up paying for litigation of this unconstitutional law. Indeed, I am reluctant to quote from the law on this blog in fear of being prosecuted or being charged with the inclusion of something so obscene and profane.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will now have to decide whether to sign this law.
Former president Bill Clinton proposed a law to create what has been denounced as a type of Ministry of Truth for the Internet where officials would monitor the Internet for rumors or untruths. Clinton heralded such a move as “a legitimate thing to do.” He added “it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors . . . And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it’s a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.”
The sponsors of this repellant law are Representatives Ted Vogt, Vic Williams, and Chad Campbell. Vogt (shown here) just graduated from the University of Arizona law school in 2010 and has already applied his hand to denying free speech and limiting tort recovery for accident victims. Quite the start for a legislative legacy.
We have long recognized that free speech comes with bad speech and good speech. Yet we have refused to allow the government to sort out those two categories. As Justice Brennan stated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), we must remain faithful to “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” The addition of an intent factor is meaningless under this law when the mere intent to “annoy” or “harass” is enough to satisfy scienter. The law would sweep away protected speech and allow arbitrary enforcement of terms that are not only undefined but undefinable in the context of Internet speech.
The solution for bad speech is more speech not more regulation of speech.
Source: MCNBC
This dog will say unequivocably that the Vogt guy in his dumb photo, the Governor and the entire legislature of Arizona, are despicable, lewd, loud, stupid, vapid, ugly, assholes with no place in America. Will someone in Arizona please open this comment and mail it to those assholes and tell them that TalkinDog is ready to stand up for himself, his dogpack, the Constitution and bark down the idiots who border on New Mexico, California and stupidity. There, I said what the rest of the commenters do not have the bark in them to bark.
Just a dog talkin. (or barkiin into this Dogalogue machine which translates into human and ArizonaTalk)
. . . sigh . . . .
Still waiting for the tipping point . . . .
Neil Davis – or freedoms are so precious that we don’t dare let people actually use them for fear they might get lost in the process.
http://www.alternet.org/story/154795/6_reasons_the_koch_brothers_had_a_very_bad_week?akid=8512.270413.w9bzci&rd=1&t=8
Vogt does terrible disservice to the uniform, which upon wearing he swore an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution.
anon nurse 1, April 3, 2012 at 9:33 am
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” — Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
===============================================
Interesting that the prosecutor who convicted Ginzberg in that case was Robert Kennedy.
I need more info before honing my abbreviation skills. Will BS or FY be exempt?
“He used to be Rumsfeld’s assistant, so he’s learned arrogance from the best.” Rich
…explains a lot.
Dredd, As you know, there are many who don’t give a damn if something is “constitutional.” An important case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAY9JOkxUvg (local police departments using cell phone tracking without warrants — on RT yesterday)
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/results-our-nationwide-cell-phone-tracking-records-requests
“facially unconstitutional”
I have read a lot of cases which indicate that the current Supreme Court conservative majority leans against facial challenges, except in blatant situations.
The easier to get across “as applied” cases do much better. In some facial challenges the majority has morphed the case into an “as applied” case in order to uphold the decision before remand.
The Ninth Circuit will be hard on this legislation, should it be signed into law, and is likely to call it facially unconstitutional IMO.
Obviously, Vogt didn’t learn much in law school. He used to be Rumsfeld’s assistant, so he’s learned arrogance from the best.
Would you have to be in Arizona to break this law? Wouldn’t it be enough that someone in Arizona reads or can read your “criminal” speach on the Internet? I believe that there are some who would make that argument. As a result traveling through Arizona may become problematic for bloggers and other whose speach annoys … Ah, free speach such an “obsolete” concept.
Well said, Neil Davis.
————
“This isn’t my America.” JCTheBigTree
Nor mine.
Calvin
As a once proud, now ashamed resident of Arizona, you can count on my letter to Brewer. But, Brewer is not the or a solution—she’s a major part of the problems here in Ala-zona.
When someone who has just graduated from law school, such as Vogt, almost immediately begins an assault on the most basic principles taught in law school, there is no doubt that such a person is a domestic enemy of the United States and the United States Constitution. Funny how he appears to be one of the troops who “fought for our freedoms” in the photo, while all the while he seeks to destroy them.
Arizonians are obviously an extremely sensitive and delicate people easily wounded by words. The demand for smelling salts must be large as swooning is, more than likely, a huge problem in both sexes.
Well folks, when do we the people step up to the plate!
This isn’t my America.
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” — Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/21/the-authoritarians-a-book-review-and-book/
You have to be kidding me…. I thought April Fools Day was Sunday….. Next, cops will stop you just so they can scan your cellphones for deleted data…. Oh wait, wait…. Don’t tell me…. They do it already….. Those damn liberals in Arizona…..
I’ll be curious as to how many folks post comments to this article and how many from Arizona will write to/demand Gov Brewer veto this blatant (and unjustified) attack on the First Amendment.
Begin now…