I normally like Jolie's articles, but it doesn't seem like this article was thought through very well at all. It pooh-poohs the First Amendment angle — y'know,

I normally like Jolie's articles, but it doesn't seem like this article was thought through very well at all. It pooh-poohs the First Amendment angle — y'know, the thing that a journalist like her depends on for their livelihood — by pointing out that owners of websites have a right to censor visitors. That's true, but it has nothing to do with the case at hand — this law applies whether or not the website is your own, as long as Arizona feels like it has jurisdiction (and in practice, what government doesn't believe it has jurisdiction over the Internet?).