4 ms·

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Yes, they have their hearts in the right place (or so they say, I have a hard time trusting these people) but th

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Yes, they have their hearts in the right place (or so they say, I have a hard time trusting these people) but the problems arise when the law is enforced. If its too broad then there are problems. For example, if I lived in Arizona and I said "fuck" like i just did there I just caught myself a class 1 misdemeanor if they really wanted to pick on someone. Laws are used beyond their intended purpose all the time. Does the Patriot Act protect us from terrorists? Debatable. But it certainly does allow for unconstitutional invasion of privacy. It's all about who's interpreting and enforcing the laws and the benevolent rulers with their good intentions today are likely to become our malevolent overlords of tomorrow.

jack-r-abbit 15y ago
Yes. we agree on the bill being too broad and open for misuse. I just don't think it is fair to focus on only one aspect (and perhaps misinterpret it) and then rail against it for the wrong reasons. Even if your desired outcome is noble, if your argument is misguided your message is lost.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  I think I understand and if I do I agree. What I'm hearing is that you think the bill needs some reworking and the idea is actually a good one that w shouldn't write off just because it's poorly written. Fair enough. I can get on board with that. Sometimes it's easy to get into mob mode and not see the forest for the trees.
  - jack-r-abbit 15y ago
    I think the bill is ridiculous. But not because of the "intent to annoy or offend" text (which seems to have gotten the most people annoyed and/or offended). That part is quantified later by describing the means by which you would do that (obscene language, threats, etc) to be unlawful. I think it is ridiculous because, as others have pointed out, there already exists other measures that can be pursued to deal with threats and the like. And also because "obscene" is such a subjective term... even the courts can't define it. They just "know it when they see it". Even if it was written better, I still don't think it is a necessary piece of legislation. My point really was to make sure we are focused on the right negative aspect of the bill rather than just the "annoy and offend" part because I don't think that is really their intent. Arguing against that part doesn't really attack the main issue and can cause the message to be lost. That was all. Edit: I think DanBC put it best... or at least more to the point.

jack-r-abbit 15y ago

Yes. we agree on the bill being too broad and open for misuse. I just don't think it is fair to focus on only one aspect (and perhaps misinterpret it) and then rail against it for the wrong reasons. Even if your desired outcome is noble, if your argument is misguided your message is lost.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
I think I understand and if I do I agree. What I'm hearing is that you think the bill needs some reworking and the idea is actually a good one that w shouldn't write off just because it's poorly written. Fair enough. I can get on board with that. Sometimes it's easy to get into mob mode and not see the forest for the trees.
- jack-r-abbit 15y ago
  I think the bill is ridiculous. But not because of the "intent to annoy or offend" text (which seems to have gotten the most people annoyed and/or offended). That part is quantified later by describing the means by which you would do that (obscene language, threats, etc) to be unlawful. I think it is ridiculous because, as others have pointed out, there already exists other measures that can be pursued to deal with threats and the like. And also because "obscene" is such a subjective term... even the courts can't define it. They just "know it when they see it". Even if it was written better, I still don't think it is a necessary piece of legislation. My point really was to make sure we are focused on the right negative aspect of the bill rather than just the "annoy and offend" part because I don't think that is really their intent. Arguing against that part doesn't really attack the main issue and can cause the message to be lost. That was all. Edit: I think DanBC put it best... or at least more to the point.