Troll while you can!



  • Saw this on el-reg.

     



  • I can't hold back enymore with the deluge of idiocy lately, so I'm going to drop it like it's hooot:

    American legislators are really really REALLY stupid.

    This is pertinent.

    I'm sorry, but I don't have sound here so I can't time-link to the bit where he starts off about offending people, but the entire thing is great, so, enjoy.

     



  • @EncoreSpod said:

    Saw this on el-reg.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/04/arizona_house_bill2549/

     

    That article annoys me.

    EncoreSpod? You'll be hearing from my lawyers in due course.

    Prepare to be sued for the large amount of emotional distress and extreme annoyance your link has caused. 

    All your fault. Yours.



  • @dhromed said:

    I'm sorry, but I don't have sound here so I can't time-link to the bit where he starts off about offending people, but the entire thing is great, so, enjoy.

    It was around the 4-min mark, but his entire spiel is pretty good so it's worth watching the full clip. It's fairly brief anyway.

    (I liked McIntyre's roadshow because it promoted a lot of unknowns, many of which are pretty talented. I've seen a few go onto greater things).

    As a footnote: most humour is based upon the premise to offend in some way; some will find humour in the ridiculousness of it all, others will take offence at the way it's being exposed. Satire exposes the incredulity of the situation in a passive-aggressive manner, which some could find offensive (not mentioning any upper manglement) - but neither would exist if the situation exists in the first place.



  • I thought this thread was some sort of ultimatum....

    On the other hand legislators being stupid pieces of turds is nothing new, remember the thing with the pedobear?



  • @dhromed said:

    American legislators are really really REALLY stupid.

    FTFY...not that you were technically wrong. Fortunately, there's no way that this law will survive, even if passed. We haven't totally abandoned rule of law, even if the Constitution has taken a lot of damage over the years.



  • I haven't visited The Register in a decade.. man, that page is loaded down with shit. The browser just sits and spins for a long time before Chrome finally asks if I want to kill it.

    As for the bill: who really gives a shit? "Legislators contemplate stupid law" isn't even worthy of a headline. I don't know AZ law but it seems parts of the bill fall into one of two categories: shit that's already illegal and shit that probably isn't legal to make illegal. Given the impressive tidal wave of garbage legislation that is passed every day, why even mention something that probably can't pass?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Given the impressive tidal wave of garbage legislation that is passed every day, why even mention something that probably can't pass?

    My understanding is that it has passed, but hasn't been signed yet by the governor. I don't know about the State House of Reps, but it appears it passed 30-0 in the Senate. I'd guess it's something similar in the lower chamber. I'm not motivated to look up AZ's veto procedure, but I'd imagine that a veto could be overridden, assuming the international shaming doesn't change some votes. Either way, the first court to see it will almost undoubtedly toss it out.



  • @boomzilla said:

    My understanding is that it has passed, but hasn't been signed yet by the governor.

    Okay, so the interesting factor moves from 1 to 2. Out of 7 million.

    @boomzilla said:

    Either way, the first court to see it will almost undoubtedly toss it out.

    Courts generally aren't much smarter than legislatures. I would be shocked if it didn't at least make it to the state appellate level. Also, if it's got a severability clause (and almost every law does) then only the illegal parts would be thrown out. From the sound of it, most of the law isn't illegal, but I'm too lazy to dig into it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Courts generally aren't much smarter than legislatures. I would be shocked if it didn't at least make it to the state appellate level. Also, if it's got a severability clause (and almost every law does) then only the illegal parts would be thrown out. From the sound of it, most of the law isn't illegal, but I'm too lazy to dig into it.

    I don't see any obvious severability clause, but then, there's really not very much to this. text of the bill here



  • @boomzilla said:

    text of the bill here

    Summary:

    Start with a telephone harrassment and stalking law
    Clarify some ambigous language
    Update the stalking section to cover electronic monitoring and gps tracking
    Replace telephone with communications device with storage capacity(Makes sense until the storage part)
    Add language that allows tracking and monitoring with permission of trackee, their authorized representitive, or the law

    All in all, just another day in government.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Courts generally aren't much smarter than legislatures. I would be shocked if it didn't at least make it to the state appellate level. Also, if it's got a severability clause (and almost every law does) then only the illegal parts would be thrown out. From the sound of it, most of the law isn't illegal, but I'm too lazy to dig into it.

    I don't see any obvious severability clause, but then, there's really not very much to this. text of the bill here

    That's even less interesting that I thought. In this case "annoy or offend" would almost certainly have to meet the criteria of being with the intent to cause emotional distress (which is likely already illegal for non-electronic communication). This is how a lot of these laws are worded. There's nothing unusual or surprising in here, the people at The Register just don't understand the first thing about law.



  • @mrsparkyman said:

    All in all, just another day in government.

    To be fair to the overworked legislators, everyone knows that you have to pass a bill before you can find out what's in it. And even then, why bother reading it when you have to hire a lawyer to walk you through it?



  • @boomzilla said:

    To be fair to the overworked legislators, everyone knows that you have to pass a bill before you can find out what's in it.

    That quote is a stroke of genius, but it is somewhat true: the interpretation and execution of laws is highly dependent on the courts and executive and can dramatically change the meaning of the law.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:
    To be fair to the overworked legislators, everyone knows that you have to pass a bill before you can find out what's in it.

    That quote is a stroke of genius, but it is somewhat true: the interpretation and execution of laws is highly dependent on the courts and executive and can dramatically change the meaning of the law.

    Sadly, I agree with you. Unfortunately, even though it wasn't originally really meant literally (or the way you mean it), it was literally true.

    One of my favorite quotes from the Obamacare oral arguments was where Scalia asked the SG whether they expected the Court to go through all 2,700 pages to decide what parts could be severed from the mandate in the event that the mandate is ruled unconstitutional. Let's not even contemplate the mountain of regulations that have already been created under the statue's authority. Weep instead for arboreal genocide in the name of Progressivism.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I don't know AZ law but it seems parts of the bill fall into one of two categories: shit that's already illegal and shit that probably isn't legal to make illegal
    I thought it was only California that did that sort of thing?



  • @PJH said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I don't know AZ law but it seems parts of the bill fall into one of two categories: shit that's already illegal and shit that probably isn't legal to make illegal
    I thought it was only California that did that sort of thing?

    Most US states now have smoking bans equally as strong as that. And it's definitely not illegal.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    Courts generally aren't much smarter than legislatures. I would be shocked if it didn't at least make it to the state appellate level. Also, if it's got a severability clause (and almost every law does) then only the illegal parts would be thrown out. From the sound of it, most of the law isn't illegal, but I'm too lazy to dig into it.
    I don't see any obvious severability clause, but then, there's really not very much to this. text of the bill here
    That's even less interesting that I thought. In this case "annoy or offend" would almost certainly have to meet the criteria of being with the intent to cause emotional distress (which is likely already illegal for non-electronic communication). This is how a lot of these laws are worded. There's nothing unusual or surprising in here, the people at The Register just don't understand the first thing about law.

    1) I don't know about the requirement for emotional distress, but especially if a kid reads it, it would seem to be applicable.  The register seems to have it, to me.  But I'm not a lawyer.

    2) PJH, we have similar smoking bans in Arizona.  I don't see what you could possibly consider illegal about them.

    3) Since I'm in Arizona... you're all stupid idiots and your mother smells of elde-hamsters.  Phew, got that out in time.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    1) I don't know about the requirement for emotional distress, but especially if a kid reads it, it would seem to be applicable.  The register seems to have it, to me.  But I'm not a lawyer.

    These kinds of laws exist all over the place and have existed for public communications of all sorts; printed, telephonic, publicly-spoken. The wording is pretty standard; I just checked and a few other states have similarly-worded statutes. I'd guess a lot of governments in Yurop do, too. As most lawyers will tell you, the written law is meaningless anyway: case law is what matters here. I think technical people have real trouble understanding that the law is not a mechanical formula that is applied precisely the same in every situation. The long-and-short of it, from my reading, is that you'd have to show harm. AZ isn't trying to make it so when Person A says something that annoys Person B, Person A goes to jail (or gets slapped with a misdemeanor). Probably what happened is somebody was harassing/stalking someone online and the state tried to do something about it but the case was thrown out because the statute was worded so it only applied to telegrams, so they're updating it to be more applicable.

    It's entirely possible I'm wrong--I've only given this about 3 minutes of consideration--but: other states already have these laws; harm is usually a prerequisite for laws like this; and technical people frequently think they understand laws but really don't and get worked up because of it. Also, The Register is basically a trolling organization and it seems they frequently try to stir up controversy or outrage with their stories.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    2) PJH, we have similar smoking bans in Arizona.  I don't see what you could possibly consider illegal about them.

    I think there's an argument to be made that this is an illegal taking when the ban includes private property. I doubt most courts would agree, but that doesn't make them good policy.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I think there's an argument to be made that this is an illegal taking when the ban includes private property. I doubt most courts would agree, but that doesn't make them good policy.

    I'm not saying it's good policy, but there's really nothing in the law that would make it illegal for states to do this. The Feds? Well, the Commerce Clause has been vastly expanded but at present I would still say the Supremes are going to say no. But states have much broader powers than the Federal government; the only restrictions on what states can do are those put in place by the Feds, those in their own constitutions or those aspects of the US Constitution that have been incorporated against the states (which at present includes the 1st, 2nd, 4th, parts of the 5th, parts of the 6th and parts of the 8th Amendments).





  • @blakeyrat said:

    Presented without comment!

    Man, you sure love pangolins.. Also: whatismycatdoingonmypants.com does not appear to be registered.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    aspects of the US Constitution that have been incorporated against the states (which at present includes the 1st, 2nd, 4th, parts of the 5th, parts of the 6th and parts of the 8th Amendments).
     

    And the eleventh, obviously. also the 13th. and the 14th. and the 15th. and... enough prattle, where is my broth?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Presented without comment!

    Man, you sure love pangolins.. Also: whatismycatdoingonmypants.com does not appear to be registered.

    And the hashtag doesn't return into results so it's a PRETTY FUCKING SUCCESSFUL TWEET ALL IN ALL HUH



  • @mrsparkyman said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    aspects of the US Constitution that have been incorporated against the states (which at present includes the 1st, 2nd, 4th, parts of the 5th, parts of the 6th and parts of the 8th Amendments).
     

    And the eleventh, obviously. also the 13th. and the 14th. and the 15th. and... enough prattle, where is my broth?

    Those aren't technically incorporated; they are specific limitations placed on the states (which was the first thing I mentioned). I supposed I should have said "aspects of the Bill of Rights that have been incorporated" rather than "aspects of the US Constitution" but I figure anybody who knew what I was talking about understood my meaning and didn't have to get into pedantic nit-picking.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    1) I don't know about the requirement for emotional distress, but especially if a kid reads it, it would seem to be applicable.  The register seems to have it, to me.  But I'm not a lawyer.

    2) PJH, we have similar smoking bans in Arizona.  I don't see what you could possibly consider illegal about them.

    3) Since I'm in Arizona... you're all stupid idiots and your mother smells of elde-hamsters.  Phew, got that out in time.

     

    Since I'm in Arizona too, #3 doesn't apply to me.

    I wonder how they expect to use the law to apply to content already on-line.  If I post a bare link on someone's Facebook page to an existing URL with distress-inducing content, can they prosecute me for something that was actually said before the law was passed?

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Presented without comment!

    <cutesy adorable syrupy shit>

    Do you find your cat seems to pick any item of discarded clothing as a suitable squatting-ground? The smellier, the better?

    </cat bollocks>



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:
    I think there's an argument to be made that this is an illegal taking when the ban includes private property. I doubt most courts would agree, but that doesn't make them good policy.

    I'm not saying it's good policy, but there's really nothing in the law that would make it illegal for states to do this. The Feds? Well, the Commerce Clause has been vastly expanded but at present I would still say the Supremes are going to say no. But states have much broader powers than the Federal government; the only restrictions on what states can do are those put in place by the Feds, those in their own constitutions or those aspects of the US Constitution that have been incorporated against the states (which at present includes the 1st, 2nd, 4th, parts of the 5th, parts of the 6th and parts of the 8th Amendments).

    Yes, I agree with you about what the courts would ultimately say. I just think they're full of shit. But I don't have an Ivy League law degree, just those powers that the Court hasn't taken away from me and handed over to the Feds.



  • I am also going on site, but I find this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/02/priest_powerpoint_pr0n/



  • @boomzilla said:

    Yes, I agree with you about what the courts would ultimately say. I just think they're full of shit. But I don't have an Ivy League law degree, just those powers that the Court hasn't taken away from me and handed over to the Feds.

    Right, but we're not talking about the Feds here, we're talking about states. You may be ideologically opposed to the idea of states banning smoking, but historically it's completely legal. And the job of the courts is supposed to be to uphold the law, not make pronouncements based on their ideology.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Yes, I agree with you about what the courts would ultimately say. I just think they're full of shit. But I don't have an Ivy League law degree, just those powers that the Court hasn't taken away from me and handed over to the Feds.

    Right, but we're not talking about the Feds here, we're talking about states. You may be ideologically opposed to the idea of states banning smoking, but historically it's completely legal. And the job of the courts is supposed to be to uphold the law, not make pronouncements based on their ideology.

    Yes, I know. Are you reading what I wrote? The 5th Amendment regulatory taking. Therefore, it would apply to the States and the Feds. But I suspect Courts would be likely to disagree that it was a regulatory taking, and so I say they're full of shit.

    "Historically legal" is not the same as "complies with the law as written." I'm quite sure that I'm tilting at windmills, and the courts and legislatures are going to keep doing stupid things like this that I believe violate the Constitution and common sense. I'm not going to stop bitching about it, either.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    2) PJH, we have similar smoking bans in Arizona.  I don't see what you could possibly consider illegal about them.
    It's more what the bans make illegal, rather than the bans themselves being illegal.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.