Okay, the harm and threat in those situation is pretty clear. How can it at all apply to something relatively harmless, like a Twitter parody account?

The term "harm" is pretty vague, as this Texas Law blog explains, referring to that state's version of this legislation, on which Arizona based its own law. "'Harm' can be very broadly construed–one person's joke is another person's harm," writes Houston lawyer Stephanie Stradley.

So, that could extend to parody accounts then?

Well, possibly. Stradley suggests that politicians who had parody accounts created to mock them might have a case. Some of the impersonation of Texas lawmakers has gone beyond just the jokey fake Twitter handle. Jeffwentworth.com is not the official site for Texas state senator, but rather redirects to the web site of the anti-tax advocate group Empower Texans which considers the San Antonio politician the “the most liberal Republican senator in Austin.” Wentworth told The New York Times this domain squatting amounted to "identity theft," and could be the basis for the law's usage.

The law could also possibly effect sillier parody accounts, suggest privacy advocates. "The problem with this, and other online impersonation bills, is the potential that they could be used to go after parody or social commentary activities," senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation Kurt Opsahl told The Arizona Republic's Alia Beard Rau. "While this bill is written to limit 'intent to harm,' if that is construed broadly, there could be First Amendment problems."

Ok, but what about precedent? Has the law ever applied to a faux Twitter handle?

Twitter has its own parody policy that mitigates a lot of the possible damage that could ever lead to a court case. Saint Louis Cardinals manager Anthony La Russa sued Twitter in 2009 because of a made-up account, but the account was removed before the case went anywhere (And that was before these laws went into effect.)

But it's not clear that parody would ever be considered harmful enough for the law. When California's version went into effect, a first amendment lawyer suggested to SF Weekly's Joe Eskenazi that jokes could go pretty far without prosecution. "You're going to have to have room for satire," he said. The account would have to look fool people, he argued. "A key question is, 'is it credibile?'" asks Simitian. "Do people who read it think it's him?" Because of our increasing skepticism of things on Twitter, unless the site has verified checkmark, it's unlikely that most people believe in a fake account for long. So, unless the imitation tweeter does something extremely harmful to someone's character, it doesn't sound like anyone would have a strong case. Alas, parody Twitter accounts, for better or worse (worse, right?) are here to stay.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.