Pam may now have some legal authority....


beefche
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

I like that one. Does that mean I could have someone charged with trolling just because they annoy me on lds.net?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I like that one. Does that mean I could have someone charged with trolling just because they annoy me on lds.net?

Sorry pam. Looks like it's only if they have the intent to annoy and use obsceneties or threats in the process. :P I imagine though that a law like this would be very difficult to enforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry pam. Looks like it's only if they have the intent to annoy and use obsceneties or threats in the process. :P I imagine though that a law like this would be very difficult to enforce.

Well darn it all. Here I thought I was finally going to be able to do something. Maybe I just need to change the site rules to state that I can ban anyone that I find annoying. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry pam. Looks like it's only if they have the intent to annoy and use obsceneties or threats in the process. :P I imagine though that a law like this would be very difficult to enforce.

Simple, declare typos and grammatical errors to be obscene and prima facie evidence of intent to annoy. The internet will be empty in no time except for a few lonely pedants. Or at least YouTube.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like we are standing on a great cliff, looking over the end of the internet era....

Naw, when it gets successfully applied and withstands legal challenges then I'll think of it as a sign of anything other than possibly some legislators who aren't quite aware of just what the task is they're looking to put on law enforcement and some of the issues.

For instance, you have Joker12357 post something as a YouTube comment:

1) Is the server in Arizona?

2) Is the person that made the comment in Arizona?

3) Is the person the comment was directed to in Arizona?

Which of these need to be yes for Arizona law enforcement to have jurisdiction? And that's not wading into 1st amendment implications that can come up as a challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naw, when it gets successfully applied and withstands legal challenges then I'll think of it as a sign of anything other than possibly some legislators who aren't quite aware of just what the task is they're looking to put on law enforcement and some of the issues.

For instance, you have Joker12357 post something as a YouTube comment:

1) Is the server in Arizona?

2) Is the person that made the comment in Arizona?

3) Is the person the comment was directed to in Arizona?

Which of these need to be yes for Arizona law enforcement to have jurisdiction? And that's not wading into 1st amendment implications that can come up as a challenge.

I agree. Jurisdiction dilemmas are probably going to be the hardest to overcome with a law like this. Just look at how difficult it has been to enforce national internet laws with regards to copyright and/or pornography.

But then, even if we completely ignored the problem of jurisdiction... Let's just say, for fun, that this law gets incorporated world-wide... Can you imagine trying to police the entire internet? What evidence would be sufficient in identifying intent? Where sites allow the use of profanity, what exactly crosses the line? And, of course, I'm sure a number of the "troll" type people who just plague sites with rediculous comments are all minors. How would that be handled?

I think whoever wrote this law had a good idea- trying to clean up all the immaturity and rediculousness out there on the internet- but its an extremely lofty goal that will be almost impossible to enforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What evidence would be sufficient in identifying intent?

A variant of Poe's Law would be a particular challenge for this. If someone says all Mormons are crazy devil worshipers who are all gonna burn and they better convert to X right away, how do you prove their intent is to annoy and not to warn them crazy Mormons about the dangers of their religion? Also, humor becomes an issue due to it's propensity to be misconstrued. If I respond to someone with a, "Don't make me beat you silly." am I trying to intimidate them with a threat of physical violence?

I realize the law likes to use the idea of reasonability (would a reasonable person construe that as an attempt to intimidate through a threat of physical violence), but it's still a practical issue (even if there is legal theory to answer the question). Particularly as you point out, due to internet subcultures. There are areas of the internet where threatening physical harm and cursing at each other is par for the course and 'all in good fun'. Out of context a reasonable person may construe it as an attempt to intimidate through physical harm and obscenity but within the context of where the comments were made it loses it's credibility as genuine in being a physical threat and obscenity intended to intimidate. Not an insurmountable issue but it's a bit sticky nonetheless.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My aunt lives in AZ and she posts some pretty annoying things on facebook. Would that count?

Probably only if the comment was directed at someone also living in AZ and this person was the one annoyed by it. And probably only if the facebook server is based in AZ, just to make things difficult. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nudists were on to something. They can't take away your privacy if you're offering it freely!

We still are on to something and you're close, MoE. If your senses of modesty and dignity are not tied to clothing, then you can be modest and dignified without clothing.

I've rarely seen an immodest nudist but I see immodest clothed people every day. Jesus said you don't have to weave nor spin nor wear clothing to be properly arrayed (or attired).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've rarely seen an immodest nudist

"Immodest nudist" is a redundancy.

Jesus said you don't have to weave nor spin nor wear clothing to be properly arrayed (or attired).

Is blatant, out-of-context misquoting of the Savior's teachings allowed in this forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Immodest nudist" is a redundancy.

Only if your definition of modesty is primarily concerned with sexuality--and even then, only if you consider nudity an expression of sexuality (which nudists do not).

Is blatant, out-of-context misquoting of the Savior's teachings allowed in this forum?

No. But neither is vehement disdain for differing points of view and life attitudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if your definition of modesty is primarily concerned with sexuality--and even then, only if you consider nudity an expression of sexuality (which nudists do not).

modesty n. 1. The state or quality of being modest. 2. Reserve or propriety in speech, dress, or behavior. 3. Lack of pretentiousness; simplicity.

No. But neither is vehement disdain for differing points of view and life attitudes.

How about vehement disdain for those who wrest the Savior's words to mean something they manifestly do not mean?

How about vehement disdain for those who rail against those who object to the twisting of the words of the Savior to fit their own agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort, when you're willing to come out of your box and attempt to understand how nudists look at nudity and modesty, we can talk.

As long as you're only willing to rant on about how you feel toward nudity and modesty, there's really no point in pursuing such a fruitless discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort, when you're willing to come out of your box and attempt to understand how nudists look at nudity and modesty, we can talk.

Ah, I see. You set the terms of our conversation.

As long as you're only willing to rant on about how you feel toward nudity and modesty, there's really no point in pursuing such a fruitless discussion.

Providing a definition is "ranting"? Methinks that, once again, you are refusing to look at the actual conversation and instead insist on replacing it with your own modified version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share