The Range: The Tucson Weekly's Daily Dispatch
Blog Categories: Politics | News | Music | Chow | Do This! | Media | TV | Arts and Culture | Snapshot | Cinema | Fun in General | Just Plain Dumb | more categories»
Blogislature
Monday, April 2, 2012
Blogislature Today in Really Stupid Bills in the Arizona Legislature
Posted by Dan Gibson on Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:06 PM
While I personally like the idea of sending in the authorities anytime one of you pesky profanity-using denizens of the comment section "annoy" me, I suppose the argument could be made that I might be accused of the same (potentially) illegal behavior under HB 2549, which looks to make the use of "any obscene, lewd or profane language" with the "intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend" unlawful. Thankfully, I don't swear all that often, so I might be in the clear.
Now, what possible unintended consequences could a bill with that sort of language create? Let's see what UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh (and person who actually understands the internet) has to say:
So, under the statute, posting a comment to a newspaper article — or a blog — saying that the article or post author is “fucking out of line” would be a crime: It’s said with intent to offend, it uses an electronic or digital device, and it uses what likely will be seen as profane language (see, e.g., City of Columbia Falls v. Bennett (Mont. 1991)). Likewise if a blog poster were to post the same in response to a commenter’s comment. Likewise if someone posts something in response to an e-mail on an e-mail-based discussion list, or in a chatroom, or wherever else. (Note that if “profane” is read to mean not vulgarly insulting, but instead religiously offensive, see City of Bellevue v. Lorang (Wash. 2000), then the statute would be unconstitutional as well.)The same would be true if someone posts something lewd in one of these places in order to annoy or offend someone, for instance if he posts a comment on a police-run public discussion page that says something like “the chief of police can suck my dick,” to borrow subject matter from a prior Arizona telephone harassment case. And note that, given that case, the speech need not even be about one of the recipients, so long as it’s intended to annoy or offend one of the recipients.
Yes, this bill seems to be an attempt to modernize laws defining "disturbing the peace" for the online age, but the language is so incredibly vague, I don't think I personally would trust the best intentions of law enforcement in this state to enforce this sort of law sanely. Just think of the field day Joe Arpaio could have with the blogs at the Phoenix New Times or what Tom Horne might think of the comment section over at Three Sonorans.
Thanks, Arizona Legislature, for giving our state another set of expensive court battles to look forward to.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
News / Blogislature "Guns On Campus" Bill Killed By Gould
Posted by David Mendez on Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:00 PM
SB 1474, the "guns on campus" legislation that stalled earlier this month, has been pulled off of life support by state Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.
From the Arizona Daily Star:
"In reality, I think it's an election year question,'' [Gould] said. "There were some legislators that were feeling weak-kneed about it,'' [he] continued. "The universities were putting a full-court press on them because they knew if I could get the bill up to the governor, the governor would probably sign it.''
Later on in the story, he disputes the costs of gun lockers purchase and installation that gun lobbyist Todd Rathner claims made state legislators skittish about the bill.
Again, from the Daily Star:
"You don't have to remodel the front of a building to put a gun locker up,'' [Gould] said . . . The reason they oppose it is that liberals run the university system,'' he continued. "Liberals don't like guns. They don't want guns on their playground.''
As with last year's bill that was vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer, expect someone (since Gould isn't running for re-election) to come back with a similar bill next year — though perhaps without the gun locker provision.
[Earlier: Off Target]
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Politics / Blogislature Another Classy Arizona Legislature Moment: Jack Harper Edition
Posted by Dan Gibson on Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:30 PM
I guess we can be thankful that Rep. Jack Harper of Surprise isn't running for re-election this year (although he told supporters in an email that he wanted to be Arizona Secretary of State or an ambassador appointment), but he's focused on disgracing whatever dignity might be left in the office on his way out, sending emails out calling a person who cared enough to email legislators a "baby-killer" and suggesting they move to China. Rep. Harper has since apologized for his "abrasiveness".
Deborah,The only “laughing stock” in Arizona is the Democratic Party that has lost seats in the state legislature for five consecutive election cycles. Maybe you should change your baby-killer message. Why don’t you move back to China where your “party” controls the message by force.
Jack
State Representative Jack Harper
602-926-4178
jharper@azleg.gov
More from the email exchange below the cut, but does it really take that much restraint to just send a banal dismissal back to people you disagree with, even with an issue as contentious as this one? Jack Harper isn't exactly known for his decorum, but I guess we get what we pay for with our representatives these days.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Politics / Blogislature House Ethics Committee Votes To Hire Investigator For Patterson DV Case
Posted by Hank Stephenson on Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:10 PM
The House Ethics Committee voted unanimously today to recommend the chamber hire an independent investigator to sort out the domestic violence allegations against Rep. Daniel Patterson and determine if he violated any laws or House rules.
In the first Ethics Committee hearing on the domestic violence allegations launched by Patterson’s former live-in girlfriend and campaign manager, Georgette Escobar, the committee recommended the Speaker of the House of Representatives appropriate money to hire an independent private council to sort out the messy he-said, she-said between the two.
“There are some serious allegations and the complaint that was received was also signed by a significant number of members of the House,” said Rep. Ted Vogt, R-Tucson, the Ethics Committee chair. “So it warrants investigation.”
Vogt said he has spoken to the Speaker of the House, who is receptive to paying for the investigation.
The investigator will have to submit a report on March 28, and Patterson’s formal response to the ethics complaint launched against him by fellow Democrats will be due the same day.
Vogt said Patterson had requested another month to respond to the ethics complaint, but the committee decided two weeks was ample time to get a response and the process rolling.
Vogt said he wanted to proceed as quickly as possible with the investigation and hearing, though he didn’t know if the matter would be decided before the session ends. House rules don’t set a timeframe for how quickly ethics investigations must be completed.
Patterson did not attend the hearing, though he voted on bills before the full House just before the committee started.
A criminal hearing is pending in the Tucson City Court. Patterson has pleaded not guilty to four counts of misdemeanor domestic violence.
Politics / News / Blogislature Bill To Create Emergency Border Warnings Dead
Posted by Jim Nintzel on Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Yvonne Delgadillo, executive director of Nogales Community Development, said issuing warnings about the border region in Arizona is unnecessary and dishonest. She said the bill would have stoked fears about the border region, even though the crime rate is actually lower on the border than in most places.“Quite frankly, I think the reason a lot of us so strongly oppose this bill is because it does provide lies to the public,” she said. “If we’re only representing the negative things, which are probably not nearly what other communities have, then aren’t we lying to the public by misrepresenting the area?”
Citing these concerns and effective lobbying efforts, Judd killed the measure. By a show-of-hands vote, the group also convinced her to kill a “strike-everything” amendment that she had proposed to address some of the concerns with the original bill, including defining the 62-mile border region defection and making the warnings only available by email to those registered to receive them. That strike-everything bill would have gone to a full Senate vote Monday.
“I didn’t even know what a step out on the limb this was, or how thin the limb was,” Judd said after agreeing to kill the measure. “I want you guys to trust me and know that I do care, I do vote for tourism dollars, I do understand.”
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Politics / News / Blogislature Studying the Bible: A Way To Make Atheists?
Posted by Jim Nintzel on Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM
The Arizona House on Tuesday passed a bill to allow schools to offer a course on the Bible's influence on American history and culture.House Bill 2563, sponsored by Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, allows public and charter schools to offer a high-school elective called "The Bible and Its Influence on Western Culture." The course must address the influence of the Old and the New Testaments on laws, history, government, literature, art, music, customs, morals, values and culture.
The bill passed the House 42-15. It now goes to the Senate.
It could be that teaching more courses about the Bible might lead to fewer people believing in it. The New York Times has reported:
Researchers from the independent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life phoned more than 3,400 Americans and asked them 32 questions about the Bible, Christianity and other world religions, famous religious figures and the constitutional principles governing religion in public life.On average, people who took the survey answered half the questions incorrectly, and many flubbed even questions about their own faith.
Those who scored the highest were atheists and agnostics, as well as two religious minorities: Jews and Mormons. The results were the same even after the researchers controlled for factors like age and racial differences.
“Even after all these other factors, including education, are taken into account, atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons still outperform all the other religious groups in our survey,” said Greg Smith, a senior researcher at Pew.
That finding might surprise some, but not Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, an advocacy group for nonbelievers that was founded by Madalyn Murray O’Hair.
“I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people,” Mr. Silverman said. “Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists.”
Friday, February 17, 2012
Politics / Blogislature WTF: Lawmakers Advance Bills To Prevent Naughty Language & Partisan Politics in Classroom
Posted by Hank Stephenson on Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM
Teachers who drop the F-bomb or otherwise use obscene, indecent or profane language in class would be suspended or fired under a proposal by state lawmakers.
Sen. Lori Klein, R-Anthem, who sponsored the measure, said teachers need to be held accountable for their words and need to set a high standard for the students.
Klein drafted the legislation after hearing from a constituent, Floyd Brown, that in his daughter’s classroom in a public high school, the teacher encouraged the students to stand up and shout obscenities at each other.
“I think that you will find that this is a greater problem than you think,” Brown told the Senate Government Reform Committee Wednesday.
“We have a problem,” Brown said. “We try to have a civil society, we try to have civil discussion but profanity and abusive language is absolutely crippling our school. And this is just one small step to try to bring that under control.”
The measure, Senate Bill 1205, passed the Senate Government Reform Committee Wednesday on party line vote and will now go to a vote by the full Senate.
Under the legislation, the first time a teacher says something that would be bleeped on TV or radio, the school would be allowed to fire the teacher, and required to at least issue a warning. For a third offense, the teacher would be suspended one week without pay, and by the fifth offense, the teacher would be fired.
The language would be tied to what the Federal Communications Commission considers obscene, indecent or profane.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Politics / Blogislature City Council Steve Kozachik To AZ Sen. Al Melvin: "Evidently, the Heavy Winter Rains Have Been Good for the Poppy Crop Up in SaddleBrooke"
Posted by Jim Nintzel on Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:00 AM
Here's Steve K's letter to Atomic Al:
Dear Senator Melvin:
How nice to receive your Concurrent Memorial. Evidently the heavy winter rains have been good for the poppy crop up in Saddlebrook.
Although you note both the full House and Senate as signatory, I see only your name attached so I will assume you're flying solo on this one.
The last letter I saw coming from you to this area was way back in December, 2010 when you told the Rio Nuevo Board to refrain from coming to terms with the City of Tucson so the Attorney General could "send down a probe" on the City. Shortly after your having sent that instruction, the Board voted in favor of working with the City. It is unfortunate that enough members who were serious about developing a working relationship either left, or were removed from the Board. The agreement to work together expired and has resulted in a $47 million Notice of Intent to sue the taxpayers of this region being filed.
Allow me to share some facts about which you were evidently not briefed prior to issuing your Memorial:
Friday, January 13, 2012
Politics / Blogislature Seriously? This Again, Arizona Legislature?
Posted by Dan Gibson on Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM
Somehow Jeff Dial (the guy whose website lifts text from Wikipedia to explain the Arizona Legislature) didn't get in on the action this time, but the Arizona Legislature is trying to shame food stamp recipients with a bright orange card again. This is, of course, because trying to feed your family when you're poor is something that should be personally embarassing:
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:Section 1. Title 36, chapter 29, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 36-2905.05, to read:
36-2905.05. Identification cards; requirements
The administration shall issue to each member who is eligible for services pursuant to this chapter an identification card that includes a current photograph of the member and the member's plan identification number. The color of the identification card shall be safety orange. The card shall include in large black print the phrase "government Assistance card". The member must present the card before receiving nonemergency services pursuant to this chapter.
What I wrote in February when this stupid, unnecessary punitive idea come up then is still applicable, but I'm wondering if Reps. Seel, Harper, Judd, Kavanagh, Proud and Sen. Antenori picked orange because they wanted to catch up on the color trend of 2012, but were afraid to see overly fashionable by selecting Tangerine Tango. Sen. Antenori, in particular, seems like a pretty style-conscious dude.
Wait, no, I'm pretty sure they just hate poor people.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Politics / Blogislature Last Night's "Debate"
Posted by John deDios on Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM
- JOHN DE DIOS
- Last nights debate featured all nine candidates running for office this year, according to News 4's Lupita Murillo, the moderator.
Last night's debate for mayoral and city council seats featured all nine candidates running for office this year. Lupita Murillo, a News 4 reporter, served as a moderator and kept audience questions flowing throughout the evening.
- JOHN DE DIOS
- Audience members submit questions for the candidates via write in.
