Arizona Internet Censorship Bill On Hold

Phoenix New Times: Arizona’s House Bill 2549, which was labeled by one critic as a “bill to censor electronic speech,” has been stopped, according to one of the bill’s sponsors.

As we’ve already mentioned twice before, the bill was never transferred to the governor, contrary to the numerous media reports saying it has. The bill was amended before it passed the Senate, meaning it was returned to the House — where it’s apparently been stopped.

State Representative Vic Williams tells New Times that legislators have received quite a bit of “legitimate concerns” — and illegitimate concerns — about the bill, and Representative Ted Vogt has stopped the bill from moving forward so everyone can figure it out.”

Arizona Bill Reintroduced – Auto-glass Bill May Change The Direction Insureds Can Be “Steered”

A game-changing auto-glass bill under consideration by the Arizona Legislature is re-igniting a fresh wave of debate in that industry.  HB 2197 has been re-introduced to a new wave of resistance from Arizona’s largest auto glass repair and services provider.  HB 2197 was re-introduced because:

Abex.com: Currently, if motorists need auto-glass repair, they call their insurance companies and, depending on the insurer, may be referred to Safelite where a third-party administrator will send out an inspector. The vehicle owner then has a choice of shops to do the repair.

The Arizona bill would create a rotating list of repair shops, and the consumer would be given a choice of three providers to use. If the bill becomes law, Arizona would be the only state with a rotating list.

(for the full article, see the Arizona Builders Exchange)

One aspect of this development for consumers is that Chandler, which houses 600 Safelite employees, may see one of its major local business sources downsized.  While 600 is a large number, Arizona is sustaining an economic recovery despite a recent similarly-sized General Dynamics layoff and a number of other such reductions in force recently in Arizona.  Proponents of HB 2197 include the Arizona Auto Glass Association and say it would preserve consumer choice, level the playing field and increase competition in the state’s industry.  Safelite contends that the bill amounts to industry meddling.

Read more about the debate in the Arizona auto-glass industry here.

 

Text of Arizona HB 2549 – the Internet Censorship Bill

HOUSE BILL 2549
an Act

amending sections 13-2916 and 13-2923, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to electronic or digital devices.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 13-2916, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-2916. Use of an electronic or digital device to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend; classification; definition

A. It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a telephone 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 is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

B. Any offense committed by use of a telephone an electronic or digital device as set forth in this section is deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone call or calls communications originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

C. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

D. For the purposes of this section, “electronic or digital device” includes any wired or wireless communication device and multimedia storage device.

Sec. 2. Section 13-2923, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-2923. Stalking; classification; definitions

A. A person commits stalking if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person and if that conduct either:

1. Would cause a reasonable person to fear for the person’s safety or the safety of that person’s immediate family member and that person in fact fears for their the person’s safety or the safety of that person’s immediate family member.

2. Would cause a reasonable person to fear death of that person or that person’s immediate family member and that person in fact fears death of that person or that person’s immediate family member.

B. Stalking under subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section is a class 5 felony. Stalking under subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section is a class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. “Course of conduct”:

(a) Means any of the following:

(i) Maintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person or directing verbal, written or other threats, whether express or implied, to a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short, but

(ii) Using any electronic, digital or global positioning system device to surveil a specific person or a specific person’s internet or wireless activity continuously for twelve hours or more or on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short.

(b) Does not include constitutionally protected activity or other activity authorized by law, the other person, the other person’s authorized representative or if the other person is a minor, the minor’s parent or guardian.

2. “Immediate family member” means a spouse, parent, child or sibling or any other person who regularly resides in a person’s household or resided in a person’s household within the past six months.

Arizona Legislature Passes Broad Internet Censorship Bill

Today the Arizona state legislature passed House Bill 2549 making it illegal to use or post “offensive” language online.  Although passed under the guise of being an anti-bullying bill, House Bill 2549, if signed by Governor Brewer, would effectively amount to censorship of any content state officials deem “offensive”.  This censorship would apply to any and all electronic communications including articles, editorials, blog comments, illustrations, cartoons, and even Facebook wall posts and status updates.  The censorship likely also extends to emails and text messages, based on the broad language of the bill.   The pertinent part of House Bill 2549 reads as follows:

Use of an electronic or digital device to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, classification; definition

A. It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a telephone 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 is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

B. Any offense committed by use of a telephone an electronic or digital device as set forth in this section is deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone call or calls communications originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

C. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

D. For the purposes of this section, “electronic or digital device” includes any wired or wireless communication device and multimedia storage device.

Under House Bill 2549, it would be a crime to communicate via electronic means with the intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend another.  It would also be a crime to use electronic means to communicate obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.   Even worse is that Arizona does not define many of the terms identified in the bill, meaning that state officials could define “offensive” as anything they don’t like.  As a result, this law could effectively be used to censor any statement that government officials disagree with.

Further, the bill is not limited to one on one conversation between two individuals.  The speech does not even need to be unwanted, just “offensive”.  The recipient of the communication does not actually need to feel offended, nor must the communication be intended to annoy or offend the reader, the subject of the communication, or any other specific person.  As a result, a substantial amount of everyday communication could be deemed “offensive” and censored.

Under the legislation, Rush Limbaugh could have been censored and prosecuted for his recent statements against a Georgetown law student if he intended that his comments were offensive.  Many late night talk show hosts could be held criminally responsible for using racy, lewd or otherwise offensive language.  Ann Coulter’s books criticising the left could be censored, as could the entire cast of Glee for making statements against the right.   The works of any novelist such as Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, or Dan Brown could be censored if their text were found to be “annoying” or “offensive”.  All romance novels would definitely be censored for using lewd and lascivious language.  All movies with “offensive” language would be censored, as well as electronically stored music, comedy acts, and images.  Many political blogs would be censored, along with some media organizations.  In short, there is little that this legislation would not cover.

This legislation is yet another move by the government to intrude into and control its citizens everyday lives.  Since the legislature conveniently failed to define such ambiguous terms such as “offensive” or “annoying”, it would essentially give the government carte blanche to censor whatever speech the government didn’t like.  Not only that, but you could be charged with a CRIME for saying something that big brother doesn’t agree with.  Pretty scary.

Whatever happened to “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” ?

Arizona Governor Vetoed Electronic Billboard Law – HB 2757

The following is the text of a letter from Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to the Speaker of the Arizona House dated March 28, 2012″

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Andy Tobin
Speaker of the House
Arizona House of Representatives
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re: House Bill 2757 (billboards; changing message; authorization)

Dear Speaker Tobin,

Today, I vetoed House Bill 2757. This bill allows electronic billboards capable of changing messages to be placed in public rights-of-way along state highways, and sets standards for display transition times.

The Legislature and outdoor advertising companies seek to make existing electronic billboards lawful under Arizona Revised Statutes. There is a legitimate need to update Arizona’s outdoor advertising laws in order to reduce confusion and accommodate advancements in technology and business development.

I am also mindful, however, of Arizona’s unique position as a national leader in astronomy and stargazing, thanks to our dark skies. Arizona is fortunate to be home to important astronomy installations across the state, including Lowell Observatory, in Flagstaff, Kitt Peak National Observatory, outside Tucson, and Mount Graham International Observatory, near Safford and managed by the University of Arizona. The astronomy industry has invested $1.2 billion in Arizona, represents more than 3,300 jobs and has an estimated economic impact of $250 million each year.

I simply refuse to place all of this in jeopardy.

I am confident a balance can be achieved that benefits both industries. For this reason, I have vetoed House Bill 2757 with the assurance that the sponsor will complete the work necessary to draft legislation that allows outdoor advertising companies to remain viable while identifying standards – governing aspects such as illumination, timing and buffer areas – in order to protect the astronomy community. The Arizona Department of Transportation will play a key role in these standards, filling the gap where county and city ordinances may be silent. To this end, I have tasked Director John Halikowski with updating antiquated rules related to outdoor advertising.

This is a valuable opportunity in which the State of Arizona can both preserve its astronomy industry and update state law to accommodate new technology. I ask that members of both communities – astronomy and outdoor advertising work in good faith in order to reach a mutually-agreeable compromise that advances our state.

This session or next, I expect to receive legislation governing this issue that I can sign into law.

Sincerely,

Janice K. Brewer
Governor

Go to Top