Proposed law in Arizona would criminalize "lewd" Internet speech

A newly proposed law in Arizona would criminalize Internet speech deemed “obscene, lewd or profane or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify.’” Via The Raw Story:

“As summarized by the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, 'The bill is sweepingly broad, and would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’ as well as certain sexual speech. Because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 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 bill is currently awaiting Governor Jan Brewer’s signature, and the Media Coalition, which defends first amendment rights in the media, has sent her a letter outlining some of the problems with the legislation.

'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,’” the letter notes. … ‘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.'”

Techcrunch also reported on the bill, and added:

“The law has been revised with, essentially, a find-and-replace of 'telephone' with 'electronic or digital device,' without any thought given to how fundamentally different these forms of communication are. If signed by the governor, the revised law would potentially outlaw any speech on the internet determined by the government as being lewd, profane, threatening, or disturbing of the 'peace, quiet, or right of privacy of any person.'

In this case, the law does not actually appear to be being twisted by an agenda to encompass certain communications, and appears to be a simple lack of due diligence by a host of ignorant lawmakers. It’s intended to extend existing stalking and harassment definitions to include cyberbullying and the like, which is of course a very reasonable and in fact admirable thing to do.

But with anything related to regulating online communications, old wording and definitions are rarely applicable. Criminalizing legitimate internet-based harassment is a good goal, but laws need to be written from the ground up to account for the very different nature of internet-based speech.”

What do you think? Does Internet speech need to be restricted in this manner? Let us know in the comments.