The Arizona state legislature has passed an Internet censorship bill that has provoked the ire of liberty seeking Arizonians. The bill extends telephone harassment laws to the Internet and other means of electronic communication. Under the pretense of being anti-bullying, the bill states that virtually anything said online that is deemed offensive by the state, to include editorials, illustrations, etc., could be a punishable offense.
According to a Senate fact sheet, HB 2549 "[p]rohibits using any electronic or digital device, instead of a telephone, with the intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend a person." HB 2549 was sponsored principally by Representatives Ted Vogt (left), Vic Williams, and Chad Campbell.
The Media Coalition contends that the bill is simply intended to censor electronic speech, because HB 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying.
The Coalition submitted a letter to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, asking her not to sign the bill into law. The letter observes that the provisions in the bill are not specifically defined and would therefore be broadly applied to almost any statement:
H.B. 2549 would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to :annoy," "offend," "harass" or "terrify"
"Lewd" and "profane" are not defined in the statute or by reference. "Lewd" is generally understood to mean lusty or sexual in nature and "profane" is generally defined as disrespectful or irreverent about religion or religious practices.
H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offende, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person.
A Danish newspaper posted pictures of Muhammad that were intended to be offensive to make a point about religious tolerance. If a Muslim in Arizona considers the images profane and is offended, the paper could be prosecuted. Some Arizona residents may consider Rush Limbaughs recent comments about a Georgetown law student lewd. He could be prosecuted if he intended his comments to be offensive. Similarly, much general content available in the media uses racy or profane language and is intended to offend, annoy or even terrify.
Bill Mahers stand up routines and Jon Stewarts nightly comedy program, Ann Coulters books criticizing liberals and Christopher Hitchens expressions of his disdain for religion, Stephen Kings novels or the Halloween films all could be subject to this legislation. Even common taunting about sports between rival fans done online is frequently meant to offend or annoy, and is often done using salty and profane language.
