Slashdot Mirror
Tennessee Bans Posting 'Offensive' Images Online
Chaonici writes "Last Monday, Tennessee's Governer Bill Haslam signed a law prohibiting the transmission or display of an image that is likely to 'frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to' anyone who sees it. In Tennessee, it is already illegal to use other methods of communication, such as telephones or e-mail, to offend someone; the new law updates legislation to include images sent or posted online. However, the scope of this law is broader, in that anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court finds that a violator should have known that someone would be offended by the image in question, they face up to a year in prison or up to $2,500 in fines."
I'm pretty sure it would offend most people on here. Ironic that a law text should be able to break itself.
I don't see this ever being upheld in court....
People are so thin-skinned these days and are prone to playing the offended/victim card. Tennessee must be a great state to be a lawyer.
I say any picture of Gov. Haslam is offensive and he should have known it. Put his arse in to jail.
UPS Sucks
Boy that would really put a damper on goatse, wouldn't it?
Could have registered goatse.tn
you want some goatse govna ????
Does this law apply to online news sources as well? That would make it *very* difficult to report on the new in an unbiased fashion, since almost all news nowadays is sure to emotionally offend someone. Not that unbiased news reporting happens a lot these days.
In before someone posts Goatse.
http://d.facdn.net/art/mearu/1291214087.mearu_tigerlilycopy-1.jpg
Fascism. Can you spell it?
Now, i am scared!
of this crap. These 'offensive' communications laws have been in place for decades, over radio, TV, and now the web. At what point is the government going to realize that just as with every other communication media, if one doesn't want to see/hear/view it, one simply needs to change the channel, click the back button, or (heaven forbid) turn the device off and go outside? Leave our radios, television sets and internet alone. I swear, if I hear 'think of the children' as justification for this crap one more time...
Well, I guess it's time to invest in G rated movies.
First off this law is way to generic and non specific, but second, what happened to the freedom of speech?
So if someone sends me an Image of the bill being signed into law, can I have the Governor locked up? If I lived there, I could argue that the bill intimidates me and causes emotional distress since I don't know if I'll be going to jail because someone found something I sent "offensive".
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
My first thought agreed with this line from the article:
Volokh points out that a wide variety of images, "pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group," could “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities,” triggering liability. He calls the bill "pretty clearly unconstitutional."
I hope the governor who signed this has his pictures all marked as offensive. :D
I'm sure some in the Tennessee leg finds this image NOT offensive in the least - they'd like to see more of it!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...obviously.
If I link someone to an offensive image (not that I would!), I'm not doing the transmitting. The person hosting it is. Does that mean that the person hosting the image would have to expect/know that someone would be offended?
Let some Tennessee statesman post a graph about projected job loss for the coming years and sue..
In fact I think any imagery related with Republican elections are automatically in. Fox news is out of business in Tennessee as well. :)
Legislatures pass laws all the time that cannot be enforced, let's see how quickly the courts strike this one down.
hey Tennessee, Saudi Arabia called. They want their right to suppress free speech back.
Oh, can't wait for this come the winter seasons. Nativity scene on the front lawn of a government property should do just nicely. It would probably fall under at least one of the 'frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to' requirements for someone out there. What good is creating a poorly worded cudgel if everyone doesn't get a turn at using it? Heheee.
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
Define offensive, because to a lot of people, the sight of politicians going around for votes and kissing babies is offensive. Will those pictures be banned? Stranger danger, beware of politicians!
Take Nobody's Word For It.
It will happen, it's part of life. How you deal with it is what matters. You can either be an adult, suck it up, and move on, or you can be a little crybaby bitch and turn it into a huge legal stink costing taxpayers money.
This is one of those bullshit laws that lawyers love. It doesn't even matter if they win a case on it, they still make off like bandits. How the hell they can even pretend to legislate something as completely subjective as "offense" is beyond me. If there were any real justice this would have been struck down as unconstitutional the moment it became law.
Good job, Tennessee, once again you've made the whole country look like a bunch of backward illiterate morons.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Did someone e-mail a state representative a picture of goatse?
Surely this law violates the right to freedom of expression? Will certainly be challenged in the courts.
Half Word - Will Double, Wire Palindrome, San Francisco
I know a lot of people who are frightened of clowns, or spiders, or dogs, or women, or men, or.......
Or how bout emotional distress?? what if you post a picture with your new boyfriend/girlfriend, your ex sees that and that causes emotional distress. You could face a fine or go to jail for that?
No worries though, I'm sure this will only apply to things that frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a small select group of people...
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
It would mean the end of 4chan
And a female wearing a Burka is offensive to others.
Do they think through these laws?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I've seen pretty gruesome pictures of religious trappings; crowns of thorns peircing someones flesh, open wounds, crucifiction (which is a particularly nasty way to die in itself) -- wouldn't these images be likely to 'frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to' anyone who sees it?
Just shows even idiots can be elected! No way that will fly in Supreme Court!
Salman Rushdie: What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.
As is the case for many people, I'm afraid of clowns. I'm glad to finally cast off the shadow of terror that hung over me, that I might inadvertently stumble across the image of a clown.
I'd love to take a quick spin through the images he gets send over the next few weeks.
http://news.tn.gov/node/7180
Images of deceased persons. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are very offended by using the names or images of deceased persons, so that's a big violation right there, under the law.
...Anonymous or some Anon-related group decides to take this one to task? If anything is asking for teh lulz, this has got to be it.
This seems like a serious troll-bait move, and if any of their state's websites and other servers aren't locked down sufficiently it seems quite predictable what will happen. Do they know what Streisand-effect is? And good luck with enforcement and jurisdiction thing on the internet.
Cue epic trolling of Tennessee in 3... 2...
Makes sense. People in Tennessee must be fed up with the offensive display of pictures of Mohammed being posted around the internet...
I'm sure a jury of my peers would agree the imagery of this nonsense-penalty is highly offensive!
Time to cut Tennessee off from the rest of the Internet. How many more stupid laws are they going to pass in that state?
Support California Succession!
being posted from Tennesse, then. Or if we do, I presume I can collect somehow?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Is Tennessee that backwards?
The first amendment guarantees the right to offend, and obviously the law can only apply to people who are in Tennessee.
Attention governor Haslam ... you probably have a tiny penis, and aren't smart enough to be writing laws. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Enshrining into law the right not to be offended is as stupid as you can get ... hell, I'm offended by your law. Now go to jail.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Because some tea partier will show an aborted fetus on a placard, or someones Darwin T-shirt will offend some church lady.
Nothing to see here, this wont stand even the weakest constitutional test.
Harassment is already a crime.
The only people who get to decide what's offensive are the prosecutor or DA (who brings charges) and the jury (if there is one). What you find offensive simply doesn't matter because it will not be brought up in the courtroom.
In reality this will be a handy way of imposing legal costs, fines and jail time on anyone the DA doesn't like or who offends people with influence in that department.
I find all visible and audible representations of religious doctrine highly offensive as I am offended by superstition and magical thinking. Do you think I can bring charges against the purveyors of such doctrine? Of course not, even though they are frauds. We have the right to free expression NOT the right to NOT be offended.
You mean I can move to Tennessee and be guaranteed of never seeing Sarah Palin's picture again?
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
> Exactly. This law is going to exist until someone, anyone, brings it to trial for any reason. Any judge is going to take one look at this and strike it down.
Yes.
Did the people who voted for or signed the law ever take an oath to protect, preserve, or defend a Constitution including freedom of speech?
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Being convicted of a crime causes emotional distress. Does this mean that posting an image that exposes a crime is illegal? If so, the images would have to be given directly to the police. Can't imagine any problems with that (especially if they're the ones involved).
So, seeing how porn is offensive to so many people, and really what can you consider offensive some people might like things others don't. What are they going to do with all the hundreds of complaints they get. This just seems stupid to me.
Sure they did. As did all members of congress, the executive, and the judiciary. You'll note how well *that* worked.
An oath without enforcement and punishment is utterly worthless unless the oath-giver has profoundly well established ethics that include the concept of personal honor in their foundation.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As a Jew, I take offense to any and all depictions of Jesus that depict him as caucasian, aryan, or naked. I suppose it's time to move to Tennessee and start suing the bejesus (pun very much intended) out of everybody.
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
If laws like this are getting passed, the end is near. The boneheads who put this through are generally running things.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
I find this offensive.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/yatta
Sue itchy guys, uh huh.
--
BMO
They say offensive images. Wait... does that mean this text is legal:
What do you call a nigger with a stutter? A cocoon!
But if you took a screenshot of it and re-posted it, you'd be breaking the law?
Just askin'.
Mature adults can get past the crude joke and appreciate the question I am asking. The rest of you will get your panties in a wad over it and should probably consider moving to Tennessee, where the good benevolent government will support your desire to control what other people say, post, and laugh at, I mean um support the fact you got "offended" at something.
If some state has the balls to pass a law stating that "anyone person over the age of 18 who gets offended at what another person says, writes, or depicts and complains about it shall be guilty of a misdemeanor" then I am packing up my bags and moving THAT DAY. Can't we just have one place that doesn't validate the crybabies and tells them to get over it? Just one? The bleeding heart gutless pansies who want to live in a G-rated fantasy land can have the other 49. They outnumber the adults anyway.
I guess Governer Bill Haslam must take down his Facebook page because I'd he highly frightened and offended should I come across it! What a fucking moron!
next time i am in Tennessee i will be sure to only insult or offend people only while in person
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Finale we are ALL criminals. Perhaps now people will get off their fat asses and use their second amendment instead of talking about it.
Nah, won't happen.
Oh well, luckily there is a way out. Voting, like in a real democracy. Oh wait, that is what got this mess where it is today in the first place. Not talking about the last election. It started somewhere in the 40-ties at least.
Well, that is what you get with a bi-polar political institution.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If they're going to be *that* backward, I propose from this day onward we refer to said state as Eessennet.
No, not the Simpsons this time. From Robert A. Heinlein's book Glory Road: "An insult is like a drink; it affects one only if accepted." I'd say this applies to any offensive behavior. I am the one who can choose to be offended or not. And most of the time it is easier to NOT be offended.
Welcome to 1996, Tennessee!
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
After all, no one sends you anything over HTTP until you request it, right? And surely someone can't be offended by something they themselves requested...
a law prohibiting the transmission or display of an image that is likely to 'frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to' anyone who sees it.
I could post my portrait and scare a good number of people.
How bad would secession really be?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
And if a message posted in another state garners a complaint by someone in Tennessee do they claim jurisdiction? And I am offended by a governor and law makers so backwards that they vote and sign such laws receiving a pay check that I am upset beyond imagination. These creeps are in American and dangerous. I hope I offend them to the point of being livid. Do they have any clue as to the meaning of freedom? Will they drag me away for posting this? It is time for people to act up.
I'm going a-browsing to make me some money...
Police state! It sounds like a pretty frightening attack on freedom tbh
I don't think he realised how bad this boomerang he Hulk-Heaved out there is going come back at him.
It will probably start with his email server melting down, then the Holy/Morality Wars erupt on Twitter and Facebook....their servers melt down, cascading to a DDOS from overload of our Justice Dept., followed by civil war, the Canadian and Chinese Invasions of a civil war-torn, blind-staggering USA, then...[....]...well, in the end you get hit by a bus, then eaten by a bear. ;-)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
What about MY Pride? MY Respect?
I thought Utah had a great year. Our wacky legislature tried their best, but not one of our efforts made the cut: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states
Well, I guess all we can do is cut educational funding some more and wait till next year.
Miles
That's no more offensive than Rick Santorum or Palin.
photosMy Photostream
should come as no surprise that Al Gore come from this state that has such soft descriptions of infringement of civil liberties. Too bad they dont pass laws banning the rampant incest going on there.
Q: How does a girl in hamilton county know when her mom is on the rag?
A: When her brother's dick tastes funny!
At least their domestic abuse program is well funded. Driving through I saw a billboard that said "In Tennessee, Baaaa! means NO!"
As a former Tennessean, it saddens to say that by moving to Mississippi for a job I ended up being in the more reasonably and progressively governed state. That might seem like an exaggeration, but the Government in Tennessee changed dramatically in the last state election. Before that, there was the occasional poorly written or conceived law that passed, like allowing guns in bars and other establishments where alcohol is served. Since the beginning of the year when the new legislature took office, there has been a deluge of this type of legislation or at least proposed bills. Examples off the top of my head include:
To put it simply, the Tennessee Legislature is putting the state on the path to race to the bottom. Congratulations Mississippi and Arkansas!
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
or at least part of Kentucky does
Duh, this will get slapped down harder than COPA, it has no chance of passing constitutional muster.
Yet, the phrasing of the First Amendment is quite clear:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So how does this work if it's *not Congress* that's making the law?
I've heard lots about how the Constitution constrains federal law (when it's actually being respected...). But after growing up in the US and paying attention more than many seem to, I confess I'm still quite ignorant about how the Constitution affects lawmaking at the state level -- though I suspect the answer is "not much".
Looking at the Wikipedia article for the Tennessee State Constitution, I note the lack of any specific provision for free speech, though there does seem to be an explicit freedom of the press. So one way around the law mentioned in TFA might be to claim that you're acting in some journalistic role.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
"Yes, I was really sad too, when the artist stopped drawing the deer."
If I link someone to an offensive image (not that I would!)
Come on, don't be a pussy, do it ! (NSFW, beware of the dragons and other general warnings apply here) (good luck litigating against Switzerland, Tennessee !)
There's a non-offensive SFW version here.
BTW both pages are in the first page of Google results for "offended".
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Dear Tennessee government:
8===D ~o
atheism pictures are now banned because atheism is offensive to christians
Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
I'm no expert on Tennessee law, but looking at the Wikipedia article for the Tennessee State Constitution, there's no mention of any freedom of speech.
Incidentally, bonus points to those of you noticing that the Constitution of the United States of America applies to the *federal* government, whereas what we have here in TFA is a *state* government.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
So every movie theatre in Tennessee is now at risk of being sued by every person who buys a ticket. Any horror movies are obviously prohibited since they are designed specifically to frighten and cause emotional distress, but even 'family' movies have villains capable of frightening a a child (think of the children!). Netflix can obviously no longer do business there, nor can youtube, hulu, or any other streaming service. News will have to be spread only by the radio and the grape vine. And for good measure, all purchasers of televisions and smartphones will be forced to sign a waiver....
You realize that this law would effect any of those right-to-life groups posting images of fetuses, as well as those animal rights groups and so on. I mean, their whole intent is to offend the common person to supporting their view.
Note that the law does say "everyone", not "anyone". It's not enough to offend Aunt Millie, you also have to offend the toughest biker, butcher (as in, meat processing), etc. Okay, maybe those baby seal pictures wouldn't offend the butcher, and the fetuses wouldn't offend abortion practitioners, so perhaps it's harder than I thought. Then again, they can't literally interview everyone, so maybe "the common person" will suffice.
Mind you, I would include anyone who posts that picture of Congressman Weiner - that ought to offend everyone.
This is the same Governor that made it illegal to share a Netflix password. What is he up to now? Anyone that offends corporations or police by posting images or videos of them misbehaving will go to jail?
who is not a resident of Tennessee to email any and all images you believe may be offensive directly to the governor. After all, you are only subject to the law if you are a resident of the state.
OpTennessee can't be far off now.
Cool, thank you! And here is the kicker, with regard to TFA:
Guarantee of freedom of speech
Which brings us back to the question of just what the bejeebus the knuckleheaded state legislators think they're doing...
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Supreme Court Rules Tennesseans Are Sentient Beings
Yah, thanks! Adrian Lopez's comment from moments before yours mentions that case indirectly by way of the Incorporation Doctrine. Days like this I'm reminded of what I like best about Slashdot -- learning stuff. :)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Thanks! Adrian Lopez's comment posted moments before yours mentions the Incorporation Doctrine as the specific conceptual framework under which this occurs. In this light, TFA makes me wonder if Tennessee legislators labor under some misapprehension that this doesn't apply to them? Dunno. Suffice it to say, I'm baffled by attempts like this to legislate narrow moralities.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Void for vagueness is a legal concept in American constitutional law that states that a given statute is void and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several ways, senses or reasons a statute might be considered vague. In general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. Again, though, there are specific ways a lawyer might make a void for vagueness argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
I feel like I had more freedom working in China.
The Joo Janta Corporation reports a down-tick in peril-sensitive sunglasses sales on a mostly harmless planet in the vicinity of Sol.
Tennessee has a lot of anti-abortion nutjobs that like to post and send photos of aborted fetuses.... let them be the first prosecutions.
So what does said Governor think of the Westboro Baptist Church, which was upheld by the Supreme Court? I swear this country's priorities are so ass backwards.
This is how they have it, its illegal to offend anyone for an reason.
Lets hear it for free speech.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Last Monday, Tennessee's Governer Bill Haslam signed a law prohibiting the transmission or display of an image that is likely to 'frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to' anyone who sees it.
Governor, for your information the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint."
Spam goatse to the TN governor!
Captcha: picture
That's where the law belongs.. In Soviet Russia.
Huh?
OK. I don't care if this is political or not. You fools who voted for republicans only want to control everyone else in the slightest way you can. You spout about "small government" and then proceed to use "big government" for childish nonsense like this. And no you should not have voted republican and your a fool if you do. You wanted this and you voted for these right wing idiots to pass nonsense like this. OK, if you guys post a picture of bush and I am in Tennessee then I am going report you to the local officials and press charges so that you can be hassled for posting a picture on facebook of bush (or Glenn Beck) that offends me. How about that? You got what you asked for. Stop acting like DA's and grow up and vote for people who don't still live in a baptist pulpit or in their right wing mother's basement.
No more anti-tobacco propaganda in Tennessee.
No more "this is your brain on drugs" ads for Tennessee.
No more D.A.R.E. campaign ads.
No more F.B.I. anti-piracy warnings online in Tennessee.
No more Amber alerts in Tennessee.
No more online weather reports about Tornadoes, etc. in Tennessee.
No more pictures of spiders, snakes, bunny rabbits, clowns, etc. in Tennessee.
No more online movie trailers for scary movies in Tennessee.
No more access to IMDB in Tennessee.
I honestly think, if this law goes forward, it should be illegal to show an image of the state of Tennessee online in Tennessee.
The only remaining legally displayable image.
how is babby formed?
Somehow I am not really concerned because one good constitutional challenge in the Federal courts and it will be struck down as both "void for overbreadth" and "void for vagueness."
Most folks think that the law will be overturned by an oppressed minority or by some do-gooder as part of a noble crusade.
In reality, it will be used to pander to the extreme right wing in order to fire up their support base by making some minority look bad in the upcoming elections.
Contrived example: Someone sends a offensive picture of bacon to an American Muslim. The offended Muslim invokes the law. The extreme right wing gets righteously outraged, wraps itself in the Flag and First Amendment and challenges the law in court. Obviously the court strikes down the law. The extreme right wing portrays this as a victory for real Americans (aka right wing voters) over Muslim extremism and as a defeat of Sharia law in America.
It's Tennessee politicians who offend me.
No, wait. It's ALL politicians who offend me.
Maybe if we limited sessions to one week a year they wouldn't have so much free time to think up crap like this particular law. That would go for city councils, county commissioners, state legislatures, and Congress. I wouldn't pay them a dime for public service either.
Do your jobs - pass a budget and protect our rights - then go home and work for a living like the rest of us.
So much for small government...
Looks like it's children's programing only for Tennessee.
Better get the horror section down pronto
Goatse didn't offend me, it merely scarred my psyche. Which is apparently not an offense under this law.
Why do obscenity laws only seem to apply to sex and violence, but not to bigotry and hate speech? Racism has zero substance to contribute to society, so why isn't it considered legally obscene?
"If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out"...
Most billboards offend me and cause me undue emotional distress. Ditto religious displays, pictures of cops beating people, and politicians giving speeches. The first time I saw Ronald Reagan on TV as the replacement announcer for Death Valley Days after the old ranger quit/died, I got nauseated, and blurted out (I was 5 or 6 at the time) "I don't trust that guy!", and never watched the show again. So, according to Tennessee law, pictures of Ronald Reagan should be banned...
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
Of course, most people on Slashdot don't know what one of those is, but generally seeing you with someone new will cause an ex emotional distress, and you'd be hard-pressed to prove you didn't know that could happen, so expect the worst if you break up with anyone with 'net access. Doubly so if you break up with a lawyer.
I think the entire population of TN needs to send the governor this link:
http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Offended
Did scary movies stop frightening people (especially children) somewhere back there?
This is really serious bunkum. Any sane judge will toss it in minutes.
Quick!! Goatse them!!!
So you can show a movie like Eraserhead or Dawn of the Dead, but you can't show images of goatse or tub girl? Stupid right wing douchebag politicians.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
It's really important that such legislation is tested. I'm glad though, that it's not in my backyard!
What if i find Political Party logos, slogans, religious icons and slogans offensive?
Let's say someone in Europe (you pick the country, doesn't really matter which one) posts nude pics of their girlfriend. The guy posts them to a site that is designed for such activity, such as any of the plethora of porn/nude sites online. Also assume that some Cro-Magnon from Tennessee can not only get online, but finds said pics of said girlfriend. Now how exactly is Tennessee going to prosecute this individual? Travel to Europe? Extradite? Are you fucking serious? This "law" is just a whole lot of election headline grabbing bullshit, that is all. I wouldn't bet two cents that it will EVER be enforced, other than with other charges of some sort, so that when they go to plea bargain, they can be "nice" and drop this charge, but press any OTHER charges that the guy/gal has on them.
Move along, nothing but southern states bullshit to see here...
Stone
Thank you TN for showing the Christian fundamentalism is not different from Islamic fundamantalism.
Now please drag your stupid ass out of the Bronze Age, you Neolithic Assholes.
a picture of a spider because someone with arachnophobia might see it, or a picture from the top of the grand canyon because someone with acrophobia might see it, or a picture of an open plain because someone with agoraphobia might see it, etc.
Perhaps Tennessee should get a copy of the Constitution and read the First Amendment. This sounds unconstitutional to me.
Tennessee is starting to be embarrassing. Weren't they trying to ban mosques or something a while ago? I guess they aren't a big fan of the First Amendment.
You want an offensive image? You've got it.
It's not illegal in TN to have pictures on your homepage that could offend someone, meaning if anyone, worldwide, could take offense in that picture it is forbidden and subject to a fine?
Gee, I think that could get expensive for abortion opponents (pics of aborted fetuses sure are offensive), bible nuts (see Jesus do anything remotely "offensive" to someone of a different faith and there you go), anti-gay movements ("god hates fags", anyone), the KKK and White Power groups (do I have to explain?), ...
I sure feel like starting to browse some TN homepages and start suing the crap out of some people.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Do they realize who won the civil war, and that it means they have to abide by the US constitution? Besides that, the definition of "offensive" is incredibly varied. How does this affect newspaper websites in the state, that may simply be reporting the news by showing an image of Muhammad? How would that be dealt with? Probably different from an offensive image to a Southern Baptist eh? And probably different from a blogger showing the same thing?
All one should have to do is walk up to a police officer with a mobile phone pointed to a page from a state official and say this page frightens AND offends them and the police should have to arrest . . . whom? The writer, the ISP, the software vendor, the person in the image? All of the above. Go Tennessee! Take the bar exam there now, you'll retire in 5 years.
Even without applying this to persons outside the US, just consider the persons mentioned visiting, ....
So anything pro-Christian will be fined, because Muslim fundamentalists will offended.
To try to express it generically:
For any X: Anti-X content in form of an image is illegal, because a person member of X will be offended.
Pro-Y content is illegal in most cases because Pro-Y usually equals Anti-(Opponents-of-Y).
Now the question is, if you take a text, and prerender it into an image does the law apply too?
We allow the fucking KKK, Scientologists and Nazi lovers to hold public gatherings and mr fuckwad Bill Haslam still thinks his bullshit is constitutional.
Just months ago the supreme court ruled overwhelmingly hecklers at dead soldiers funerals have the right to be offensive and belligerant. Is it really possible to offend a father more than that by sending an image over the Internet?
It is the same fucking oath to the constitution every single public official takes. It does not matter if you agree with it or not. It does not matter if you are a little pussy who does not have the stomach to tolerate shit you think is offensive. You swore an oath to uphold the US consitution - supremacy clause and all. Deal with it or step down.
Something good will come of this law
Goatse will disappear forever in case someone in Tennessee sees it (I doubt it)
Just type "shitting dicknipples" into Google Image search.
Head-explody, guaranteed.
No, not that head, you pervert, the one on your shoulders!
by any image of mickey mouse, hello kitty, or a smiling barack obama, please take them down asap
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
The idea of causing 'offence' is the new weapon of choice in the authoritarian war against dissent.
Tennessee is testing grounds for the new world order. I came to the realization of this during the month long "The oil pipes stopped and the whole US is out of gas so we don't have any!" that came to Nashville and it's surrounding areas a few years ago. It was pure bullshit when I call friends in distant counties and states that thought I went mad. Then it went away in the background where no one seemed to care as the news tried to cover it up with a handful of lame excuses.
goatse
Caused me some distress, I'll tell ya.
I know I got ticketed last year in TN by the lovely racketeering machine known as the Tennessee State Police while I was riding down The Dragon. He pulled me over for speeding (which I was guilty of, but they had it set up like a speed trap, 25 mph on a road in the middle of nowhere..) but he gave me a lecture about my helmet and told me 'we don't like that language down here boy' when he read my helmet sticker. It says 'Fuck all Ya'll" in rather bold letters. I would not have put a sticker like that on my helmet of my own volition, but a very pretty girl bought it for me because I played bodyguard for her while she went skinny dipping. What's a guy to do? Anyways, she thought 'ya'll' was humorous, since she's from Mass. I almost smarted off the the gestapp... I mean TSP and said' hell, I thought YA'LL invented it!"
If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
This law is clearly unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has already stated several times that even the most offensive speech is still protected speech. Unfortunately, it will take deep pockets to enforce that Constitutional right.
Frankly, I think our country should push for a Constitutional amendment that calls for drawing and quartering lawmakers that legislate in clear violation of the Constitution. Our legal system has absolutely no penalties for figures in power that abuse that power.
Where do I sign up to have her image removed from the internets?
Ask Me About... The 80's!
if I would be in Tennessee and I would tell my wife that I want a divorce.
I can imagine this would cause emotional distress.
So I would be jailed.
I really question the lawmakers in Tennessee
Emotions are a big part of what makes us human beings. Do not take that away from us please!
... the law's authors were /. users who found moderation to be too soft of a vehicle for penalizing Anonymous posters of goatse pictures. ;)
But I do have a serious point.
While none of us could say that something like goatse has a necessarily positive net benefit, and it is certainly "offensive", some of the most ground breaking art is by its very nature meant to be offensive.
The picture of a naked woman on the cross like Christ could be seen as offensive. But it makes a strong social statement, whether a particular person agrees with it or not. While I think certain images negatively impact society, the problem with laws such as this are interpretation. And in rational thinking, a naked man on the cross should be just as offensive. Yet, nobody would think much of it, because of exposure. In fact, entire populations of people would extol what they perceive as the positive impact it has had, while other entire populations would decry its negative impacts.
The problem is the chilling effect. It forces minority works of art to be censored by others afraid of the law. This runs contrary to the laws of social evolution, because it prohibits and artificially restrains that evolution, even from potentially positive impacts of controversial works that could lead us to greater freedom and equality.
Goatse will not do this, which the laws authors would cite being used as a psychological weapon. But who is to say Rick Rolling couldn't be seen as distressing? If someone posted a youtube of "Pope is killed!" and it was re-broadcast of the death of the previous Pope, but editted so as to seem to apply to the current pope, and then Rick Rolled. Both the Rick Roll would be a "shock", the edit would be a "shock", etc. etc. Then, we see pranking outlawed if we take this to its logical conclusion.
I believe that we will always see that laws hastily written and poorly implemented will fail, we should encourage our government to explore game theory more. This would lead to actually considering future consequences on future activities, and the iterations of those impacts. Short term solutions to short term problems are just as likely to become future long term problems themselves.
I8-D
right?
What about spam emails? can they sue the sender for it?
No Win No Fee Lawyers
I guess movie theaters in Tennessee will not be showing 'Saw XXIII'...
In other news, a staunch supporter of 1st Amendment rights in Tennessee was frightened and emotionally disturbed when the new law was transmitted in local newspapers. Local newspapers were subsequently hit with steep fines for transmitting such information after the man complained about the law.
The level of understanding about what this country is, what is stands for and what OUR RIGHTS are seems to have simply disappeared. These boneheaded lawyers and shills are destroying the last bastion of freedom on the planet. Well, it is largely gone already at the whim of some bureaucrat who is dumber than the boneheads passing this stuff.
Time for a good hanging...
What is art to me may be offensive to you. (No, not porn). Porn is already difficult to distinguish from art. Unless it is still pictures. I presume the Tennessee is really directing it's wrath at videos.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Should be the first citation. Have you SEEN this idiot? its enough to make my oatmeal hit the wall!!!
I'd just like to say,
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/2849622655_45410ea072.jpg
COME AT ME BRO.