Turley: Arizona Law is a Stake in the Heart of Free Speech

April 5th, 2012

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

Jonathan Turley
Thursday, April 5, 2012

In one of the most sweeping attacks on free speech in America, the Arizona legislature has passed a draconian bill that would criminalize speech on the Internet (“any electronic or digital device”) that prosecutors consider “obscene, lewd or profane language or . . . suggest[ing] a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify.’” The law is largely undefined and is in my view facially unconstitutional. The law would drive a stake in the heart of free speech. Yet, people like Bill Clinton have been calling for such a crackdown on Internet speech for years.
The inclusion of terms like “profane” (defined as including “Abusive, vulgar, or irreverent language” in standard dictionaries) is perfectly bizarre. I cannot imagine that the law was put through any serious legal review. The state will end up paying for litigation of this unconstitutional law. Indeed, I am reluctant to quote from the law on this blog in fear of being prosecuted or being charged with the inclusion of something so obscene and profane.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will now have to decide whether to sign this law.

Former president Bill Clinton proposed a law to create what has been denounced as a type of Ministry of Truth for the Internet where officials would monitor the Internet for rumors or untruths. Clinton heralded such a move as “a legitimate thing to do.” He added “it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors . . . And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it’s a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.”

The sponsors of this repellant law are Representatives Ted Vogt, Vic Williams, and Chad Campbell. Vogt (shown here) just graduated from the University of Arizona law school in 2010 and has already applied his hand to denying free speech and limiting tort recovery for accident victims. Quite the start for a legislative legacy.

We have long recognized that free speech comes with bad speech and good speech. Yet we have refused to allow the government to sort out those two categories. As Justice Brennan stated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), we must remain faithful to “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” The addition of an intent factor is meaningless under this law when the mere intent to “annoy” or “harass” is enough to satisfy scienter. The law would sweep away protected speech and allow arbitrary enforcement of terms that are not only undefined but undefinable in the context of Internet speech.

The solution for bad speech is more speech not more regulation of speech.

Print this page.

Comment Rules

19 Responses to “Turley: Arizona Law is a Stake in the Heart of Free Speech”

No surprise. The Feds did that already. Any one of us that says anything about anyone can be picked up at any time. Just stop thinking and posting and everything should be fine.

ricdose Reply:
April 5th, 2012 at 10:36 am

Well, I’m surprised they not at more door, yet….cause I talk a lot of shit about them…I refuse to fear my government. In fact, they should fear their citizens. If they come to my door, because of something that I said on a blog, I do not plan to go peacefully…If everyone (or just million) does what I do, the feds will figure out that they have bitten off more than they can chew. They can control 100 million angry citizens…Though, I would love to see them try. In fact, I dare them to. Things have to get ugly in order to get better. The sooner, the better.

ricdose Reply:
April 5th, 2012 at 10:38 am

(I can’t type) edit version

Well, I’m surprised they not at more door, yet….cause I talk a lot of shit about them…I refuse to fear my government. In fact, the government should fear their citizens. If they come to my door, because of something that I said on a blog, I do not plan to go peacefully…If everyone (or just million) does what I do, the feds will figure out that they have bitten off more than they can chew. They can’t control 100 million angry citizens…Though, I would love to see them try. In fact, I dare them to. Things have to get ugly in order to get better. The sooner, the better.
Infringing on the first amendment is a red line.

I will fight to the death to defend my constitutional rights. If you want to make me shut up, you will have to kill me.

Vengeance Reply:
April 5th, 2012 at 3:40 pm

but They got spriiiinkles. See the yummy sprinkles…
This Law will not stand! the SC will strike it down!
I recant my recent obnoxious postings here regarding life-size Janet Napolitano bedtime dolls. In fact, I wish her a life free of bedtime experiences.

Vengeance Reply:
April 5th, 2012 at 3:41 pm

Fat chicks need love too, but they gotta pay!
everyone who voted for this are just plain antiamerican scumfucks …..just plain treason against the people

Super Duper Man 1776 Reply:
April 5th, 2012 at 3:02 pm

THOSE WHO ALLOWED AND HELPED THIS, ARE COMPLETLY IN THE WRONG AND DONT HAVE A CLUE.

THEY ARE UNPREPARED AND HAVE NO SUPPLIES FOR WHEN SHTF

WHEN SHTF, FK THEM, LET THEM ALL STARVE
If Jan Brewer signs that bill, I’m going to write a very offensive and obnoxious blog about her, and I’m going to e-mail her that blog. Though, to be honest, I would be surprised if she did sign it. I do like her stance about the border…However, she’s lost my respect if she signs it…and I WILL NOT obey this law, I would rather die…
Well, it’s a sign of more to come in losing our freedoms, that’s for sure.
No one can take away free speech, It only works if WE kiss ass.
I will say what I wish and if it offends someone they need to leave or I need too.
If WE SPEAK-UP the Crooks Lose. WE have to bring lite into the darkness to make it scatter.
I wish the politicians would shut the fuck up!
We annoy Bilderbergers on pretty much every topic. Yes, we’re guilty. SO COME ON.
Naturally Clinton would promote this law, because he would then be able to censor discussion regarding his involvement in the occult, human ritual sacrifice and the child sacrifice debauchery ritual and necromancy. This would allow him to censor THIS narrative, too, which is the reason he wants this bill. It’s the same rationale they used to pass S.1867.1021, also co-authored in Arizona. S.1867.10212 is a DRAC law engineered to protect Obama from litigation involving him with Phil Bredesen, Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Soros in the kidnapping for Torture of Delta Region abduction victims Crystal Hall, Brittanee Drexel, Megan Maxwell, Paige Johnson, Holly Bobo, Lauren Spierer, Katelyn Markham and Karen Swift. Hell, this gets so dark it dates to Polly Klass and involvement in THAT abduction with Pete Wilson. Why censor the truth or any variation thereof when it could bring these monsters to justice? Oh yeah, huh.
Good to see the Spirit of ’76 still alive 🙂

coastx Reply:
April 5th, 2012 at 2:41 pm

The spirit is willing, but the body is weak. We don’t have competent state or national militia to send in a team of attorneys preemptive of forcing Obama out, and with Arizona’s competition between county and state government on this issue, madness would prevail without fully understanding that Obama has nearly 100% backing from the NGA, which also now you understand how NATO will penetrate state boundaries. Much as she is brilliant on other issues, Jan Brewer is turning out to be a neo shill. THe game at this point is for everyone to pull together to do whatever we can to promote the Bill od Rights and domestic and economic infrasturctures and not be continually baited into neo theater to become more confused than when we started asking questions. Oh, and Clinton doesn’t want you doing that either by the way.
The National Governor’s Association has been Atramentalized, folks, which means we not only have to be careful about who we elect for president but for governor as well. Neopolitics knows no shame, nor does it portray any political office which it serves in the interest of preserving the Bill of Rights and domestic and economic infrastructures so much as it is transformational on the issue of repatriation of the US to a charter of the UK.