by Rachel Alexander
Townhall.com
You and I may not use profanity in our Facebook posts, but what about that crazy relative who puts up the funniest posts that sometimes cross the line? Almost no one approves of swearing, but with the exception of broadcasting during daytime TV and radio, it is not illegal. Now new legislation in Arizona would effectively make swearing on the internet a crime.
Sponsored by Democrats and liberal Republicans, Arizona House Bill 2549 passed both the House and Senate almost unanimously last week, and has gone back to the House for a minor change before being sent to Governer Jan Brewer to sign. The relevant part states:
It is 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.
It expands Arizona anti-harassment laws beyond telephones and to the internet. The problem with this is that one person specifically telephoning another person is not the same thing as an anonymous comment on the internet. This kind of behavior goes on all the time on the internet. Every day on political blogs and news sites, some commenters get a little out of hand, and most website editors handle the problem by stepping in and deleting the offensive comments or leaving a comment warning people to tame their comments.
Words like “annoy” and “offend” are vague and could be interpreted broadly to prevent someone from simply engaging in political debate. What one person considers profanity another might not. Is the word “sucks” a swear word? What about “b.s.?” Plenty of families find those acceptable, while others do not. Even anonymous commenters could be liable, if an internet provider produces records tracing their IP address.
There is no way this legislation will survive a First Amendment challenge in court. The government cannot flat out ban all swear words, which is effectively what this legislation does in the internet realm. The courts have already carefully decided when and under what circumstances the FCC may prohibit swear words on broadcast TV and radio, and even those restrictions are now being reconsidered. Consider all the swear words on TV and in movies. Then think of what a mammoth task it would be policing the entire internet for swear words that reportedly annoy or offend someone, and to come up with the additional resources necessary to prosecute them. Anyone could get into a political debate with someone on a political website, use one swear word in their comments, and be considered violating the law. My own political website, IntellectualConservative.com, is technically full of violators. This is troubling since political debate is the bedrock of our country, Constitution and the First Amendment.
“…Sponsored by Democrats and liberal Republicans, Arizona House Bill 2549 passed both the House and Senate almost unanimously last week…”
Are most Republicans in the state legislature liberal? “Almost unanimously” says they are. Censorship of the web is very dangerous; I can’t see this bill/law standing unchallenged or undefeated. Another waste of legislative expenditures.
Read the original law as it regards the same definitions and rules for phone communication that’s been part of Arizona law for years now. Notice too this bill was nearly unanimously bipartisan.
This law isn’t new and, it has passed court challenge. Its been updated to the new technology that’s all.
But you’d have to be familiar with the ARS to know this. The definitions are all ready set in the ARS so there’ll be no legal challenge to this law once Brewer signs it – which she will.
Irrelevant. This is what is relevant:
“It expands Arizona anti-harassment laws beyond telephones and to the internet. The problem with this is that one person specifically telephoning another person is not the same thing as an anonymous comment on the internet.”
It has not passed a court challenge regarding the internet.
If there is a constitutional challenge, which I expect there will be, I suspect this will be found to be unconstitutional simply on the grounds that the language is too broad and too vague. It is also possible that this is a strategy on the part of Conservative Republicans with the idea being to establish an outer boundary regarding the limits of how broad and how vague legal language can be, in this regard, before failing constitutional muster. Associate Justice Kagan is known to favor limits on speech so this could be a way of beginning to define what sort of legal language goes too far.
The definitions are set in the ARS already. This law won’t be challenged. Nice conspiracy theory though.
Irrelevant. It is of no consequence whatsoever that the definitions are set in the ARS already. Those definitions and limits do not currently apply to the internet. Did you read the article?
“It expands Arizona anti-harassment laws beyond telephones and to the internet. The problem with this is that one person specifically telephoning another person is not the same thing as an anonymous comment on the internet.”
CR wrote: “This law won’t be challenged. Nice conspiracy theory though.”
It’s nice that you have a liberal crystal ball with which to see the future and the liberal “conspiracy theory” crack is, without doubt, older than you are.
I read the bill and the ARS; don’t care what an article says.
CR wrote: “I read the bill and the ARS; don’t care what an article says.”
Really? Then why have you commented on the article?
Aren’t you, Rachel Alexander, in league with Andrew Thomas, Joe Arpaio, and Dennis Wilenchek who attempted to subpoena the ip addresses of people who read the phoenix new times for some nefarious purpose? You also arrested the editors of the New Times in the middle of night. You didn’t support a free press then, and you do not today. You and your ilk deserve to be stripped of your United States Citizenship and deported to a country who’s views you agree with — North Korea comes to mind. Why are you still here, if you have so little respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Are you a fan of the New Times?
I am a fan of the New Times and have been following them for 8 years, including during the time I lived in Boston.
I personally don’t care about someone’s political views. They are, in fact, none of my business. I tend to agree with points Democrats make as well as points Republicans make. That is why I am an Independent.
For once, I actually agree with you, Ms. Alexander. You are correct in stating the detrimental effect this bill would have on the 1st Amendment, specifically freedom of speech.
Bill? In case you don’t know how to research legislation or how to look up the vote record, just know that this bill received the approval of both sides of the isle. So shut your yap till ya know what yer talking about.
Hey, smart mouth, why don’t you shut your own yap until you learn how to spell. It’s “aisle” and not “isle”.
“Definition of ISLE: island; especially : islet”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/isle
Apparently, Einstein, you think that our legislators go off to an island to do their work. Oh, you’re real smart alright, LOL!
CA wrote: It’s “aisle” and not “isle”. (sic)
Here’s the rule we all learned in sixth-grade: Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even inside single quotes.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp
Yo, CA, get your own house in order before yipping about the yaps of others.
ROTFLMAO!
ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!
You REALLY know how to put your foot in it every single time, don’t you, TC!
You claim to be an attorney. That is rather doubtful, given your above comment, because of this:
“As just two examples, The ABA Journal of the American Bar Association has preferred logical quotation since at least as early as 1951, and the journal Language of the Linguistic Society of America also requires logical quotation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#cite_note-WilbersOnChicago14-19
…and what is “logical quotation”?
“logical quotation”
“A system of quotation wherein punctuation marks are enclosed within a quotation only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation.”
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/logical_quotation
TC wrote: “Here’s the rule we all learned in sixth-grade…”
If you want to write like someone in 6th grade then, by all means, stick to what you learned in 6th grade, LOL!
Have a nice day, TC!
Too funny.
You’re not writing for a legal publication. So the ALA rule doesn’t apply. Even if you were writing for legal work, you’d follow the local rules, which would likely mirror the Harvard Bluebook rules, which would follow the American rule.
You wingnuts are too predictable. You skip over the basic, most direct, commonsense explanation for everything and instead try to find excuses for your miserable intellects, typically based in some bizarre obiter dicta.
Funner still, you provide the link to your own intellectual destruction. From the very link you provided:
“In the U.S., the prevailing style is called American style, typesetters’ quotation, printers’ rules, typographical usage, or traditional punctuation, whereby commas and periods are almost always placed inside closing quotation marks. This style of punctuation is common in the U.S. and Canada, and is the style usually recommended by The Chicago Manual of Style and most other American style guides.”
When and if you get a law degree, then you can pretend that you intentionally used logical quotes, but only when doing the most obscure of legal commentary. Until then, just follow the rules for American English. (We all know that you’re just trying to cover for your intellectual failings … you aren’t fooling anyone.)
Just proves, you can lead a wingnut to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.
ROTFLMAO.
ROFL, ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!!!!
TC once again gets his clock cleaned, LOL! Give it up, TC. You simply don’t have the right stuff to engage with me. Every time you try, you lose! You claim to be a lawyer and you never even noticed that the ABA Journal uses “logical quotation”. Duh!
TC wrote: “You wingnuts are too predictable.”
There’s that word again; “wingnuts”! Here’s another example of it in use:
“Russell Pearce’s Pal Shane Wikfors’s Fake Outrage in Sonoran Alliance (w/Update)
By Stephen Lemons Fri., Aug. 26 2011 at 11:28 AM”
“It’s always amusing when wingnuts try to grow a conscience. Like a beard on an alligator, you know it’s fake from jump.”
“That’s why I cracked a smile today while perusing far-right wing blog Sonoran Alliance, where moral relativist-in-charge Shane Wikfors is demanding an apology from Carolyn Cooper, a supporter of the recall of state Senate President Russell Pearce.”
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/08/russell_pearces_pal_shane_wikf.php
Do you agree with Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times that Shane Wikfors is a “wingnut”, TC? A simple “yes” or “no” will be sufficient.
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
Seriously, you’re just embarrassing yourself at this point.
You’re not writing for the ABA Journal and no one believes for a moment that you intentionally used the ABA Journal’s style of punctuation when writing an IBB post.
We all see you for what you are – an semi-literate wingnut trying to cover his intellectual failings.
(BTW: When writing for the web we use either AP style or Chicago Manual. So, even if you were using the ABA Journal’s former style, you were still in the wrong.)
Finally, It’s not that “EVEN” the ABA Journal uses logical punctuation, it’s that it’s “ALMOST ONLY” the ABA uses it – and that was in 1950. (Hint: it helps if you actually read the material you cite, LOL!)
Modern usage within the ABA Journal has dropped logical punctuation and follows the Harvard Bluebook. Journal writing aside, legal work follows local style rules, which again are based largely on the Harvard Bluebook and the Chicago Manual. We put out periods inside the quotes.
When you find yourself in a ditch, quit digging. You are the embodiment of why wingnuts are not considered conservatives. You not only don’t get it right the first time, you deliberately refuse to get it right subsequent times because you’re frail egos can’t stand to admit you didn’t know something.
Even something as basic as proper punctuation becomes a fluoride-in-the-water-conspiracy with you people.
ROTFLMAO, again.
BTW: yes, I see my typos. You will also find them in other posts I make. Typos in IBB posts don’t offend me, in opposite to releases and articles that logically are held to a different, higher standard. I only comment on your blatant errors because you thought it important to skewer someone for leaving an “a” off a word.
Finally, while it’s been fun toying with you as you try to lie your way out of your punctuation failings, particularly as you cite a 1950′s article about the ABA Journal writing style, I encourage you to read the actual ABA Journal.
In its article found here: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_prosecutor_on_trial_ex-maricopa_co._atty_faces_disbarment_for_political
You will not only see that, yes, periods go inside quotation marks in the modern ABA Journal, but also you’ll learn about Thomas and the author of this article, Rachel Alexander.
Specifically:
“The bar also recommended a three-month law license suspension for Rachel Alexander, an obscure conservative blogger-cum-assistant prosecutor who was hired by Thomas for her new-media expertise. Then, brushing off warnings from senior aides and Alexander’s own concerns about her inexperience, he tapped the young prosecutor to handle a federal civil-racketeering case against judges, elected county leaders and other political foes that was widely ridiculed as risible.
“Indeed, one required predicate act said simply that two lawyers had laughed at the original complaint’s author, Aubuchon, in a courtroom.
“The criminal charges Thomas and Aubuchon filed against now-retired Presiding Criminal Judge Gary Donahoe, as well as the RICO case that included him, loom largest in the discipline case.
“At its core, the racketeering complaint alleged that, in exchange for a new courthouse, several judges were blatantly throwing civil and criminal cases filed by Thomas’ office against county supervisors and others—even though the building project had long been in the works and was already paid for. Investigators had combed through thousands of documents and found nothing to support the key allegation—that a supervisor pressured the chief judge to hire a certain lawyer for the project—which was based on a second- or third-hand rumor that went uninvestigated and unproven.”
So now we have firmly established that TC does, in fact, agree with the liberal Stephen Lemons of the liberal Phoenix New Times that Shane Wikfors is a “wingnut”.
Through the good graces of Mr. Wikfors, the owner of Sonoran Alliance, you are permitted to post your liberal views at this Conservative website. At the same time, you refer to him by the derrogatory term “wingnut”. Typical liberal behavior.
Have a nice day, “True Liberal”!
I think Shane allows me to post because he appreciates a true conservative voice.
As for the rest of your diversionary drivel – I have no idea what you are writing about, and I suspect neither do you.
So when you refer to Shane as a “wingnut”, that is proof to Shane that you are a “true conservative voice”?
Yeah, you always get brain dead when your clock has been thoroughly cleaned, LOL!
Have a nice day, “True Liberal”, LOL!
I’ve never referred to Shane as a wingnut.
I have referred to you as a liar.
Seems I have just cause to do so again.
Nice deflection; rather, nice try at a deflection, away from your intellectual shortcomings.
ROFL!
…and there goes TC, into “liar” mode again, LOL! Next comes “spammy posts” and “coward”! Every time I clean your clock, you go into fetal position and regress to being a whining infant, LOL!
Do you agree with Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times that Shane Wikfors is a “wingnut”? Yes or no? If not, then clearly state that Shane Wikfors is not in any way, shape or form what could be referred to as a “wingnut”.
What’s the matter, TC? Won’t do that?
Have a nice day, “True Liberal”!
Well said. I completely agree…
Wait a minute…Can we throw corrupt and mentally sick Pearce on the boat to Pyongyang?
Alexander was NOT in on that round of BS.
That, however, does NOT excuse her actions regarding the criminal abuse of power she took part in by filing the frivolous RICO lawsuit against the 4 judges, the entire Board of Supervisors, the lawyers working for the county and senior county management.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_prosecutor_on_trial_ex-maricopa_co._atty_faces_disbarment_for_political
You will not only see that, yes, periods go inside quotation marks in the modern ABA Journal, but also you’ll learn about Thomas and the author of this article, Rachel Alexander.
Specifically:
“The bar also recommended a three-month law license suspension for Rachel Alexander, an obscure conservative blogger-cum-assistant prosecutor who was hired by Thomas for her new-media expertise. Then, brushing off warnings from senior aides and Alexander’s own concerns about her inexperience, he tapped the young prosecutor to handle a federal civil-racketeering case against judges, elected county leaders and other political foes that was widely ridiculed as risible.
“Indeed, one required predicate act said simply that two lawyers had laughed at the original complaint’s author, Aubuchon, in a courtroom.
“The criminal charges Thomas and Aubuchon filed against now-retired Presiding Criminal Judge Gary Donahoe, as well as the RICO case that included him, loom largest in the discipline case.
“At its core, the racketeering complaint alleged that, in exchange for a new courthouse, several judges were blatantly throwing civil and criminal cases filed by Thomas’ office against county supervisors and others—even though the building project had long been in the works and was already paid for. Investigators had combed through thousands of documents and found nothing to support the key allegation—that a supervisor pressured the chief judge to hire a certain lawyer for the project—which was based on a second- or third-hand rumor that went uninvestigated and unproven.”
ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!!!!!!
Even though your obsession with punctuation is totally off topic, I see that you are in your obsessive masochistic mode yet once again so I’ll accomodate you.
Anouncing Checkmate in one move. Yes, TC, it is time once again to administer the coup de grace and put you out of your pseudo-intellectual misery, LOL!
“Punctuation inside or outside”
“On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is sometimes referred to as logical quotation. It is used here because it is deemed by Wikipedia consensus to be more in keeping with the principle of minimal change. This punctuation system does not require placing final periods and commas outside the quotation marks all the time, but rather maintaining their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material.”
“Correct: Arthur said, “The situation is deplorable and unacceptable.”
(The period is known to be in the source.)
Correct: Arthur said that the situation was “deplorable”.
(The period is known not to be in the source, its presence in the source is uncertain, or its coverage within the quotation is considered unnecessary.)
Correct: Martha asked, “Are you coming?”
(The question mark belongs inside because the quoted text itself was a question.)
Correct: Did Martha say, “Come with me”?
(The very quote is being questioned, so the question mark belongs outside; any punctuation at the end of the original quote is omitted.)”
“When a quoted sentence fragment ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside. The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence.”
“Correct: Martha said, “Come with me”, and they did.”
“If the sequence of juxtaposed punctuation marks seems distracting or untidy, try an acceptable alternative.”
“Correct: Martha said, “Come with me” (and they did).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
So here we have a source, which you often quote, which is exclusive to the internet, which proves you wrong. This, of course, is to be expected as you are invariably wrong, LOL!
Are you educated now?
Have a nice day, “True Liberal”, LOL!
You’re not posting on Wikipedia … and adopting the Wiki anything is a risky move.
You’re not fooling anyone. Nice effort, however, to cover your failings. It would have been more admirable for you to simply acknowledge your made a mistake, but hey, that’s just the mature thing to do.
More to the point – Wiki considers itself a global publication and thereby uses the British system.
The American system of grammar controls, in my book, and, again, you’re not fooling anyone.
ROTFLMAO!
ROFL, ROFL, ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!
You’re quite simply too funny for words!
No matter how you squirm, like a worm on the hook, you’ve had your clock thoroughly cleaned by me yet once again. When are you going to learn? You really should rid yourself of your masochistic obsession, LOL!
And now, back to the original point. It is “aisle” and not “isle”. Apparently our resident “Einstein”, “Conservative Railbird”, thinks that our legislature goes off to an island to do their work. Duh!
Have a nice day, “True Liberal”!
Yes, the sky is never blue, and the grass is never green, in the precious land of Wingnut where you and your delusions reside.
The bottom line is this: you called someone out for a typo while committing the most basic of grammar errors for American-English.
You then scurried to find a 1950′s reference to a now-abandoned practice of using the British system by a law journal, and when that fell apart you then scurried even further down that rat-hole of a brain to cite the style guide of an international publication.
All the grammar instructors out there are wrong – you proclaim – because you, the mighty wingnut, know all.
You’re not fooling anyone, and your false bravado just adds to the comic nature of your posts.
You had no clue how to use punctuation when using quotes and when the rule was given to you, your reaction was classic wingnut: deny the truth, claim hidden knowledge, declare victory.
You are hilarious, and for reasons you can’t even appreciate.
BTW: it delights me to no end that you continue to use poor grammar and punctuation, despite having been informed of the proper usage. It gives the educated an opportunity to know that you’re not all that bright. In poker, we call it a tell, and this is just one of many intelligent people use to identify the dim-witted in our midst.
Oh, there’s that “wingnut” word again, LOL! Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times also uses the term “wingnut” just like you do:
“Russell Pearce’s Pal Shane Wikfors’s Fake Outrage in Sonoran Alliance (w/Update)
By Stephen Lemons Fri., Aug. 26 2011 at 11:28 AM”
“It’s always amusing when wingnuts try to grow a conscience. Like a beard on an alligator, you know it’s fake from jump.”
“That’s why I cracked a smile today while perusing far-right wing blog Sonoran Alliance, where moral relativist-in-charge Shane Wikfors is demanding an apology from Carolyn Cooper, a supporter of the recall of state Senate President Russell Pearce.”
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/08/russell_pearces_pal_shane_wikf.php
Do you agree with the liberal Stephen Lemons of the liberal Phoenix New Times that Shane Wikfors is a “wingnut”? Yes or no?
Think deliberately, answer the question presented.
Have a nice day, “True Liberal”!
Read the legislation. Read the ARS. Read case law. Those are much better prime source research material than newspapers and magazines.
Okay, enough, CR. Don’t give us that “read this”, “read that” garbage. That proves nothing. If you want to make a case, then make a case. Extract the material from the ARS and from case law and prove your point.
Your tactic is exceedingly feeble. You are attempting to convince readers that you have some sort of superior knowledge and are beneath proving your point. No, I challenge your point. Prove it!
As I pointed out above, anything currently in the ARS does NOT automatically apply to the internet. You’ve got nothing, LOL!
Have a nice day, CR!