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."

Comments

Someone got a picture of the law?

[MrHanky]

I'm pretty sure it would offend most people on here. Ironic that a law text should be able to break itself.

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[sqldr]

I was gonna draw a picture of someone ramming a bottle of Tennesee Jack Daniels up Ghandi's arse while he urinates on Mohammad's face as he rides a half-cow-half-jesus into a hindu shrine whilst dressed as Hitler, but I don't think I'm that good at drawing.

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google search. It's probably been done.

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh my, that sounds like you watch Glen Beck's show. he shows those things all the time cuz it proves Obama was not born on this planet. now where is my tin foil hat, need it to keep stinkin' nazi liberal commy pinko perverts from stealing my virginity.

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

The legislation? Mere words on a page. Not particularly frightening.

Picture of the legislators that would pass a law, and the thought of what else they might do? Now that's frightening. I also expect plenty of people to be arrested in Tennessee next October 30th when they decorate their houses for Halloween.

The previous law dealing with *direct* sending of such materials via e-mail or intimidating messages via phone to a person with the intention of having those effects -- that mostly makes sense. It's essentially about making threats to people, and that's already illegal depending upon the details. But to display or transmit such stuff to anyone, even if it doesn't constitute a clear threat and is only something "frightening" or "causes emotional distress" in some way? All someone has to declare is "I'm offended" or "I'm in emotional distress over this", and POOF, however is deemed responsible is a criminal? What is this, a law officially declaring Tennessee a nanny state where people aren't allowed to frighten other people? Ridiculous. While we're at it, I think they should pass a law requiring all government buildings and businesses to have padded walls and floors to prevent people from hurting themselves.

Perhaps I should write a letter to the Tennessee state DA expressing how frightened and emotionally distressed I am that I might accidentally frighten or cause emotional distress to a Tennessee resident and be brought up on charges. Maybe I should just stay away from that state. Also, is there any way I can block access from any IP addresses within the state of Tennessee, just in case people might see something on my web pages that they found frightening or emotionally distressing?

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Governor, I find your face offensive

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[MischaNix]

Actually, the act text seems only to apply to images of people.

Source: http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/107/pub/pc0362.pdf

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[petman]

(2) "Images" includes, but not limited to, a visual depiction, video clip or photograph of another person.

Emphasis mine.

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[MischaNix]

The specific text of the act is, in all likelihood, the only extent to which a judge will enforce it, for the very reasons of First Amendment rights.

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[cthulhu11]

My first thought was that it should apply to any photo of Dolly Parton from the last 15 years.

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[Waccoon]

If you drew it as a blizzard scene, there would still be plenty of people offended by it.

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[tehcyder]

I was gonna draw a picture of someone ramming a bottle of Tennesee Jack Daniels up Ghandi's arse while he urinates on Mohammad's face as he rides a half-cow-half-jesus into a hindu shrine whilst dressed as Hitler, but I don't think I'm that good at drawing.

That's sacrilegious - you can't treat Jack like that.

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[Golddess]

half-cow-half-jesus

I'm curious how exactly you were envisioning that part. Centuar, minotuar, or something else entirely?

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[Golddess]

A blizzard scene? Is that like the "picture" of the back of a polar bear in a snow storm? Or is this a reference to the game developer?

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[FredFredrickson]

Thank goodness you didn't draw it, I would've been offended. Otherwise, your text is completely harmless. :D

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[FredFredrickson]

I'm thinking left-half jesus. AMIRITE?

Re:Someone got a picture of the law?

[Coren22]

So than Goatse is on topic?

...really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see this ever being upheld in court....

Re:...really?

[sarysa]

Maybe not the Supreme Court, but how many tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees would it take to get that far? All for a $2500 fine?

Looks like Tennessee has a strong extortion racket going, so long as they don't get greedy and go after rotten.com or something.

Re:...really?

[causality]

Maybe not the Supreme Court, but how many tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees would it take to get that far? All for a $2500 fine?

Looks like Tennessee has a strong extortion racket going, so long as they don't get greedy and go after rotten.com or something.

That's why any citizen who wants to hire an attorney should automatically have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of any law.

Here's my logic. All citizens are expected to know and obey all laws that apply to their jurisdiction. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Since the law applies to all, and all are expected to obey it, all should have standing to challenge it. Why should someone need to be convicted under the law before they even have a chance to do that, when compliance to a bad law also has a cost and is also a type of damage?

These politicians value an imaginary right not found in the Constitution, namely the "right to never be offended", more than they value an enumerated natural right that is plainly protected by the Constitution. Bear in mind that the overwhelming plurality of politicians are lawyers -- it is not like they don't understand what the Constitution says. It's not like you would need to be a lawyer to understand the First Amendment. It's more like they know they can do this with impunity, so what's their incentive to honor their oath of office and the highest law of the land?

I'd love to see jail time for politicians who support this bullshit, no matter what other downside to that there may be. If that means politicians spend a great deal of their time trying to jail each other, that's fine with me -- there's more where those came from, time they spend doing that is time they can't spend doing damage to the People, and that would provide incentive for passing only laws that are obviously Constitutional. When I say jail time, I'm not talking a nice cushy vacation getaway type of prison either, I'm talking count them among the general inmate population and see how well they fare.

It's unjust that a few politicians can make millions suffer due to their idiocy, and when the law is finally defeated after great personal cost, financial cost, and possibly years of time, there is no penalty for the legislators who voted for it. This needs to be changed and they need to be reminded that they are our servants, not our masters. I've never heard of a single nation in history which had a legally "untouchable" ruling class that gave a damn about freedom and prosperity. I doubt we're going to be the first.

Re:...really?

[__aagbwg300]

That's why any citizen who wants to hire an attorney should automatically have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of any law.

You can already do this, more or less. If you have the money, you can fund a group of brilliant lawyers who will go through the list of every single person charged with this crime, find the perfect sympathetic defendant and then litigate the Hell out of it. Since this is a First Amendment/Technology issue, I'd start here or here.

There's a reason why the Constitution requires an "actual case and controversy" for the courts to find jurisdiction. This law may go into effect and subsequently never get enforced. The founding fathers knew that the judiciary would be so busy solving actual problems, that they didn't want to bother them with philosophical debates that may or may not every actually be resolved.

Let the lawsuits begin

[Bloodwine77]

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.

Re:Let the lawsuits begin

[Technician]

Hmm, how far does that jurisdiction reach? Does it include links? Does it include out of the country? They should have fun with the sudden influx of goat links. Good luck with that.

Re:Let the lawsuits begin

[camperslo]

And what if someone is offended by seeing someone of very low/high weight?

Re:Let the lawsuits begin

[Osgeld]

This place is infested with lawyers, and the dumb shit hicks that constantly feed them by their stupidity, but what can you expect? We are still debating if allowing guns in bars and school campuses is a good idea or not.

Re:Let the lawsuits begin

[losfromla]

I thought we'd agreed it was a good thing.

Re:Let the lawsuits begin

[Coren22]

I'm offended by pictures of the governor. Should I sue the governor's office for redress?

http://www.billhaslam.com/site/c.ieJPIWOtEnH/b.6375325/k.819A/Bill_Haslam_Governor_Elect.htm

It's a picture of (random name), I'm offended

[SirGeek]

I say any picture of Gov. Haslam is offensive and he should have known it. Put his arse in to jail.

Re:It's a picture of (random name), I'm offended

[Coren22]

http://www.billhaslam.com/site/c.ieJPIWOtEnH/b.6375325/k.819A/Bill_Haslam_Governor_Elect.htm

Now you can sue me!

Riiiight

[drummerboybac]

Boy that would really put a damper on goatse, wouldn't it?

How about newspapers?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How about newspapers?

[BigSlowTarget]

The newspapers will probably not be prosecuted unless they attack the DA or other political figures.

Re:How about newspapers?

[tverbeek]

Do you think any news outlet in Known Space _doesn't_ report the news in a biased fashion?

Fixed that for you.

Re:How about newspapers?

[canajin56]

The law requires that the image be intended to cause harm, and have absolutely no other purpose whatsoever at all. Newspapers are safe unless they start publishing pictures for no other purpose than to intimidate or threaten people (Oh, did you think the law said offend? that was made up by Ars Technica to get you offended!)

Re:How about newspapers?

[causality]

The law requires that the image be intended to cause harm, and have absolutely no other purpose whatsoever at all. Newspapers are safe unless they start publishing pictures for no other purpose than to intimidate or threaten people (Oh, did you think the law said offend? that was made up by Ars Technica to get you offended!)

It's already illegal to threaten people. What does this law proscribe that was not already covered by existing laws?

Re:How about newspapers?

[MysteriousPreacher]

That's really not a sensible line to draw. Any law that criminalizes offense will be highly subjective. Libel is one thing but laws against being offended are pretty much a competition to see who can complain the loudest.

Re:How about newspapers?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's already illegal to threaten people. What does this law proscribe that was not already covered by existing laws?

it proscribes funding cuts to agencies tasked with enforcing the law and it also proscribes criticism of the pandering politicians behind the law as being "soft on crime."

Re:How about newspapers?

[cheekyjohnson]

The law requires that the image be intended to cause harm

And how can they prove that? "It's obvious" isn't enough proof for me. Not only that, but it amounts to the same thing: "I don't like images that are specifically designed to cause offense to people. Therefore, people should be banned from sending them!"

Re:How about newspapers?

[Sprouticus]

So does that mean if the intent is to make money from advertising (say.....2girls1cup) or lead you to another website, then its ok?

Re:How about newspapers?

[semi-extrinsic]

Well, you should probably exclude some of the wire services, like AFP, AP and Reuters. While their individual articles may be argued to be biased, in total the bias cancels out (IMO).

Re:How about newspapers?

[geekmux]

The newspapers will probably not be prosecuted unless they attack the DA or other political figures.

Great. That, coupled with the political standard issue "get out of jail free" laminated card should pretty much give anyone in a position of power a God complex within a week. If you thought they were untouchable before...

Re:How about newspapers?

[rtb61]

Firstly of course there are people with phobias, a whole range of phobias, that many people are aware and know full well a whole range of images will disturb them. Secondly there is the principle of push versus pull, of people seeking that content or of that content being forced upon them.

When you post an image on-line in by far the majority of case no one will see it unless they make an effort to do so. They actively use their connection to the internet to seek the image, send a request to obtain the image and are then offended by actually getting to see what they requested to see. Especially considered the tens of billions of web pages and the effort required to find the one to be offended by it.

Re:How about newspapers?

[UBfusion]

Any image is a choice and any choice is an intended harm to the other pictures that did not get posted.

Example: A small local newspaper has a tech column and regularly features pictures and reviews of Windows-based products while ignoring totally the Apple universe, because the editor is an MS fanboi, or because he gets paid under the table to do so. This certainly "causes harm" to Apple and the Windows-based product photos "have absolutely no other purpose whatsoever at all".

Can Apple sue?

Re:How about newspapers?

[ArsenneLupin]

What does this law proscribe that was not already covered by existing laws?

goatse

Re:How about newspapers?

[hesiod]

in total the bias cancels out (IMO)

Often when people see no bias existing, it just means that the bias most closely reflects their own. Not trying to judge, or say you are wrong, just an observation. For instance, some people -- many of whom are not mentally handicapped -- still believe that the Fox News channel is balanced. Easy target, I know, but it's true.

Re:How about newspapers?

[tverbeek]

I've never seen an article published by the AP that reflected the view that Earth really should just be used up and thrown away as quickly as possible, and it's been a long time since any of these services have produced articles in support of human slavery. These may be biases that you and I and most reasonable people on the planet agree with, but they are biases nonetheless.

Re:How about newspapers?

[semi-extrinsic]

I guess that's right, except that the AP doesn't publish opinions, they report news. So if Harold Camping came out next week in support of human slavery (not suggesting that he might), the AP would most likely report it. Sure, they don't report "local unknown crazy person says crazy things", but not due to bias, due to it not being news.

Booo!

[losttoy]

Now, i am scared!

I'm getting so tired

[milbournosphere]

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...

Re:I'm getting so tired

[tagno25]

Think of the zombie children. What would happen if their food left?

Re:I'm getting so tired

[RazzleFrog]

Your abuse of the English language offends me. My lawyers will be contacting you.

Re:I'm getting so tired

[Qzukk]

never been to a break point before

I've been to a breakpoint before. If you don't want to see what's in there, you just step over it rather than stepping into it.

Re:I'm getting so tired

[DigitaLunatiC]

Because making a goat.ce.cx popup spammer is just blatant cyber assult in my opinion for the average population.

I think it would be more reasonable to make unsolicited pop-ups illegal than offensive images. Pop-ups with offensive images would then be handled, as would many scams and sources of malware. This is clearly the better solution.

Re:I'm getting so tired

[Khyber]

The only people that like to scream "Think of the Children" are pedophiles.

Real families and parents actually raise their child.

Re:I'm getting so tired

[Bobfrankly1]

Real families and parents actually raise their child.

I've heard of such things, but only in fairy tales...

Re:I'm getting so tired

[easyTree]

obviously graphically disturbing

to whom?

To be safe, perhaps one should avoid posting anything online? There are a very large number of points-of-view out there.

This law* appears to be badly-thought-out.

Disclaimer: I've read neither the article nor the text of the law and so am basing my point-of-view on the summary :D

Re:I'm getting so tired

[cheekyjohnson]

Images are hardwired to memory upon site if they are disturbing enough.

"Disturbing" is subjective. Anyone can be disturbed or offended by virtually anything. If images/text/videos offend someone so much that it "ruins" their life or something, then that is simply too bad. Not much can be done for such fragile people (except for keeping them closed off from the rest of the world).

Most people with your view just want to scream censorship which is just silly when the truth is that these things should be leagle but some level of resonable restraint in preventing accidental viewing is not unresonable to ask for.

You said yourself that the opinion changes from person to person. How are they supposed to know what will and what won't offend people? Why even waste time on something like that? Just deal with the 'offensive' things.

Re:I'm getting so tired

[idontgno]

That's weird. I must be reading the wrong fairy tales. Most of the ones I'm familiar with depict the families of protagonist children as cripplingly poor, sociopathically dysfunctional, or utterly aloof from the children, who are usually raised by peasant foster parents, wild beasts, or mythical creatures. Or fattened up for eatin'.

So, apparently, truth isn't stranger than fiction; it's indistiguishable.

Re:I'm getting so tired

[uigrad_2000]

of this crap. These 'offensive' communications laws have been in place for decades, over radio, TV, and now the web.

TV and radio are much different, because they go over the air.

Theoretically, I could censor all the radio stations in my town. If they have programs that use offensive language, I can just broadcast my own signal, louder than theirs, blocking out what I find offensive.

Radio stations did not like vigilantes censoring them, and the result of this was the FCC. The FCC says that such malicious interference is illegal. As a compromise, though, they required all broadcasting stations to abide by basic standards. Sure, the constitution lets you say anything you like, but if you want the FCC to protect you from your neighbour's interference, then you have to abide by a certain amount of standards. Violating the decency standards of the FCC doesn't make you a criminal, you simply lose the license that was granted for your radio station.

As far as I can tell, there is no equivalence with the web. FCC broadcast licenses are not required for posting to forums. Tennessee is clearly making this a criminal issue. I can't understand how it even got to the governor's desk, but I know for a fact that it will crumble the first time it goes to the courts.

Hollywood

[librarybob]

Well, I guess it's time to invest in G rated movies.

Re:Hollywood

[idontgno]

Don't get too comfortable. My first lawsuit will be over Bambi. Do you know how offended I was when Bambi's mommy got shot? If you're a Disney shareholder, you will find out.

Re:Hollywood

[ColdWetDog]

Don't get too comfortable. My first lawsuit will be over Bambi. Do you know how offended I was when Bambi's mommy got shot? If you're a Disney shareholder, you will find out.

What about most of YouTube?

Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

First off this law is way to generic and non specific, but second, what happened to the freedom of speech?

Re:Constitution

[afidel]

Duh, this will get slapped down harder than COPA, it has no chance of passing constitutional muster.

Ok....

[ArcadeNut]

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".

Re:Ok....

[skywire]

No, you can't have the Governor locked up, only the person who sends you the image. But seriously, even if the Governor posted the image, do you imagine that you could persuade a prosecutor to indict him? 'Laws' like this that would, if uniformly enforced, place the entire population behind bars, are not truly laws; they are an affront to the rule of law.

Should be interesting....

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Should be interesting....

[Ruke]

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.

Re:Should be interesting....

[zippthorne]

Eh..

That's how it happens in an ideal world, and that's even how the politicians voting for it think it will go down - How many would vote for such a law if they thought it would actually stick, rather than just be a notch in their arrow they could point to as being "hard" on something, or "compassionate" about.

But really, what happens is what happened to McCain-Feingold years back. It gets passed, and then it gets trimmed a little around the edges. And the trimming doesn't remove any of the fundamental, objectionable bits.

TN lawmakers find THIS image totally innocent

[davidwr]

I'm sure some in the Tennessee leg finds this image NOT offensive in the least - they'd like to see more of it!

Who is liable?

[gknoy]

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?

Re:Who is liable?

[gknoy]

No, I'm praying that the courts will. :)

Re:Who is liable?

[Xtifr]

Law takes intent into account—something that is often difficult for literal-minded techies to grasp. If it is your intent that the image be transmitted to someone it's intended to offend, then you might be liable even though you may not have literally transmitted the image. The opposite reasoning would tend to make the person merely hosting the image less likely to be liable.

Warning: IANAL, and anyone who makes important legal decisions based on my random slashdot posts is hereby declared to be a complete idiot.

Hmmm

[RenHoek]

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. :)

Let's see what the courts will have to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Legislatures pass laws all the time that cannot be enforced, let's see how quickly the courts strike this one down.

Free speech

[losttoy]

hey Tennessee, Saudi Arabia called. They want their right to suppress free speech back.

Holiday Fun!

[AioKits]

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.

Re:Holiday Fun!

[schlachter]

Yea, lack of separation of church and state has always been disturbing to me. Emotional distress!! I claim distress! Now I have a venue to sue!

Re:Holiday Fun!

[rrohbeck]

Even worse, what about all the images of a half naked man nailed to a cross? That scared me as a kid and I'm sure will scare many today. Those pictures (and their abstraction, only the cross) have to go.

What is offensive?

[Wowsers]

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!

You have no right to not be offended

[spidercoz]

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.

Re:You have no right to not be offended

[MobyDisk]

mod parent insightful - most "representatives" are lawyers. While this gives them the background they need to make good laws it also lets them manipulate the system more effectively. It is the reason US laws are thousands of pages long to say what other nations do in a few paragraphs.

The US would be in so much better shape if laws were made by engineers, business professionals, and coal miners. There is a reason there are so many lawyer jokes in the US.

Re:You have no right to not be offended

[canajin56]

"Offensive" is something made up by the media, or at least by Ars Technica. The bill never says offensive. The law says "Frighten, intimidate, or cause emotional distress." It's even in the summary. Hilarious you calling them illiterate while not even reading the summary. The law also covers intent. It ONLY covers speech that is intended to intimidate, frighten, or otherwise harass a person. So, no, this is no different than all the other laws against harassing phonecalls and the like. You have in intend to inflict emotional distress, and your communication has to have no other purpose than to inflict distress.

Re:You have no right to not be offended

[evil_aaronm]

If so, there's a trivial defense: "You misunderstood me." Which kind of makes the definition of the law pointless. You sue me, I say I didn't intend what you think, it was just a joke, how do you prove it? The only ones that win with this law are lawyers.

Re:You have no right to not be offended

[txghia58]

So my grand father was a fire and brimstone southern baptist preacher. Most of his sermons were intended to frighten people of going to hell. So in this day and age he would have been breaking the law. The movie Reefer Madness was intended to scare people of the evils of marijuana. etc.... etc.....

Re:You have no right to not be offended

[Rakarra]

So my grand father was a fire and brimstone southern baptist preacher. Most of his sermons were intended to frighten people of going to hell. So in this day and age he would have been breaking the law.

The movie Reefer Madness was intended to scare people of the evils of marijuana.

etc.... etc.....

Hell, I'm sure every day in the Tennessee Congress a legislator makes a speech intending to frighten people into action.
Wouldn't shooting/posting "horror movies" in Tennessee be illegal? It's hard to argue that Wes Craven's movies -aren't- intended to frighten viewers.

whaaaat....

[itchythebear]

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...

Re:whaaaat....

[oracleofbargth]

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...

Like politicians seeing anything that they disagree with.

On the plus side

[Noah69]

It would mean the end of 4chan

Re:On the plus side

[spidercoz]

dude, regardless of what you personally think about it, you should be glad 4chan is there

Re:On the plus side

[ColdWetDog]

It would mean the end of 4chan

Well that certainly puts a different light on things. Way to go Tennessee!

Re:On the plus side

[spidercoz]

go back under your bridge

Re:On the plus side

[Toonol]

Funny that you're the one posting anonymously, and the 4chan defender isn't. Funny that you're the one with over-the-top vitriol on a forum, partly fueled by your anonymity, and the 4chan defender was civil.

You're just a mess of contradictions, anon.

Re:On the plus side

[Ksevio]

Yeah, without it, all those bored trolls would leak out onto the rest of the Internet.

So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive.

[Maxo-Texas]

And a female wearing a Burka is offensive to others.

Do they think through these laws?

Re:So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive.

[mugurel]

So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive. And a female wearing a Burka is offensive to others.

So by logical inference, females are offensive, and thus, by the proposed law, it is not allowed to post images of females online... Tennessee is undermining the very concept of the internet!

Re:So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive.

[ajs]

Nope. Based on just those two requirements, this image of a woman would be acceptable: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meissnera.jpg

But, of course, any photo in which it could be determined whether or not the woman was wearing a burka would be a violation of the law, and you could heap on any number of other reasons for someone to be offended.

Re:So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive.

[boarder8925]

Do they think through these laws?

Yes. What government would pass up the opportunity to harass people at its discretion, especially in cases so subjective as those this law applies to?

Re:So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive.

[LongearedBat]

Tennessee is undermining the very concept of the internet!

I think that might be the idea... to gradually reduce the use of the technology in Tennessee and start returning to good ol' fashioned Mormon ways.

Re:I am not in Tennessee.

[bev_tech_rob]

In before someone posts Goatse.

Too late...

Re:I am not in Tennessee.

[DrBoumBoum]

I am offended. Please go directly to jail.

His emal inbox is bound to be hilarious.

[Zaphod-AVA]

I'd love to take a quick spin through the images he gets send over the next few weeks.

Snip!

[cbybear]

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!

Holy thought police ...

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Holy thought police ...

[Macrat]

Is Tennessee that backwards?

Not only known for being backwards, but inbred as well.

Re:Holy thought police ...

[supercrisp]

You do know that governors, the executive branch, don't write the laws, right? The authors are on the bill: http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/107/pub/pc0362.pdf. And in response to the posters below: do keep in mind, we're not ALL inbred cretins here in Tennessee. At least you'd better hope not, because we're running Oak Ridge, a couple of reactors, a couple of high explosives plants, and a facility that will produce 130,000+ metric tons of aluminum this year--not to mention controlling the headwaters of the largest river system south of the Hudson and east of the Mississippi. And that's just the most inbred, eastern, hillbilly side of the state. (Yes, I'm a little butthurt. As a native Tennesseean, bitching about the inbred cretins is MY job.)

Re:Holy thought police ...

[gstoddart]

You do know that governors, the executive branch, don't write the laws, right?

No, usually a corporation hands it to them, and they just sponsor it. That's the most infuriating part.

And in response to the posters below: do keep in mind, we're not ALL inbred cretins here in Tennessee.

*laugh* I wasn't asserting that ... but, one kinda does expect the people in the executive branch to have at least a working knowledge of the Constitution, and have a grasp of what laws they can and can't pass.

Unfortunately, it seems like the cretins are increasingly taking over the world, and are quite happy to pass laws that completely go against pretty much all of the founding principles of the US.

I find that sad -- 235 years of tradition and history, wiped out by drooling morons who think they should be able to pass a law that says Pi is 3.

If the US fucks this up, the rest of the world is pretty much screwed.

Here's who decides

[BigSlowTarget]

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.

Re:Here's who decides

[MarkvW]

It will be interesting to see what the first test case is. Is it a yahoo prosecutor, acting all stupid for the benefit of his electorate, or is it a prosecutor from a large county who brings a truly you-know-it-when-you-see-it offensive before the court?

If I was the elected prosecutor, I'd let this law sit unprosecuted like a lot of the anti-union laws that were enacted at the turn of the last century.

Re:Here's who decides

[Adam Appel]

What happens to when the case is reported on? Then that case is reported.... Ouch, I am not going to think about it.

Re:Here's who decides

[MarkvW]

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.

A lot of times criminal laws are the foundations of tort. This may (or may not) turn out to be such a case. I don't think that your conclusion is necessarily so certain.

Re:Here's who decides

[Arterion]

Yep, because you'll have to hire a lawyer to defend you regardless. That's going to be about a grand in Nashville. I've been through the court there for a Misdemeanor offence -- it's a joke. The DA's are all pricks, and the public defenders are totally overwhelmed. I only got a "not guilty" because the judge was friends with the lawyer I hired, not because I actually wasn't guilty. Of course it all came about because some dickhead cop decided to pull me over for no reason, make some vague claim to "smelling something" in my car, then inviting himself to search through it, in violation of my 4th amendment rights.

All this stuff that's based on "prosecutorial discretion" is total crap. It's a full-on invitation to the DA's and the police to do whatever they please.

Tennessee ALSO passed a law about "theft of entertainment services" which is so broadly written that I could be convicted of a FELONY if I were to share my netflix password. That's not the intent of the law, but it's written broadly enough to include that.

kryst

[BlindRobin]

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.

No more Sarah Palin?

[Relayman]

You mean I can move to Tennessee and be guaranteed of never seeing Sarah Palin's picture again?

Can we impeach them?

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> 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?

illegal to post images exposing crimes?

[arobatino]

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).

Oaths

[fyngyrz]

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?

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.

Re:Oaths

[jazman_777]

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. -- Lysander Spooner

Re:Oaths

[fyngyrz]

Yes. And just the tip of the iceberg. Spooner's writings are amazing.

Re:Oaths

[treeves]

Of course, the Constitution (as is any document) is powerless by itself, and depends on men of courage to defend it. Men such as they who signed the Declaration of Independence. These have been lacking.

Jesus H. Christ

[ALeavitt]

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.

Re:Jesus H. Christ

[petman]

As a Jew, why would you care about how Jesus is depicted?

Re:Jesus H. Christ

[UBfusion]

Very informative, I didn't know that Jesus was black, not aryan and fully dressed on the cross.

It's a sign of the times

[Wansu]

If laws like this are getting passed, the end is near. The boneheads who put this through are generally running things.

So...

[bmo]

I find this offensive.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/yatta

Sue itchy guys, uh huh.

--
BMO

I'm so confused

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm so confused

[Anonymous Coward]

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

In Tennessee, if you don't laugh at racist jokes, you're considered part of the problem. It's bizarroland.

Re:I'm so confused

[sumdumass]

i suspect this is just an extension of the purposely harassing someone laws that got royally screwed up in the process. they are designed to stop intimidation and harassment of someone specific by someone specific.

An example of this is where someone's father has passed on and a person who is upset with them for any reason, decides to send pictures of him dead with captions drawn on it saying something I'm glad or something similar. It's to stop someone from calling up repeatedly and saying congratulations on losing your job, your house, your car, I'm gonna fuck your daughter and steal your wife.

The ability of someone to do that can be debated, but the intentions would be pure malice and some people think the government has the ability to stop some of that by laws with penalties much the same way they do with laws against physical violence.

Don't delude yourself into thinking something like this law was supposed to cleans the intertubes for the fine citizens of that state. It's more to do with crap like this

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/02/family-gets-go-ahead-to-sue-chp-over-release-of-grisly-crash-photos.html

Re:I'm so confused

[EventHorizon_pc]

Technically, anything seen on a computer monitor / LCD screen / movie screen / etc is an image, regardless of whether there's text on it or not.

I'm thinking that getting a group of Tennesseans together that finds the interface that Windows uses intimidating and frightening might be a good idea. Has Sony made any movies with a part that is frightening, intimidating, or offensive lately?

Also, for some odd reason the Tennessee state seal and flag are getting rather offensive to me.

Re:I'm so confused

[cheekyjohnson]

Words and images! How terrible. Better ban the ones that offend certain people immediately and label them as "harassment" while pretending that they aren't speech.

Re:I'm so confused

[Bobartig]

The statute language is inclusive of any "communication," so you do not need to re-package as an image. Your post is sufficient under the text of the law.

Re:I'm so confused

[spauldo]

That text isn't offensive in Tennessee. Try changing it to something like, "those white women just love that black cock".

Re:I'm so confused

[ekhben]

If I was a lawyer out to ruin someone's day, I'd argue that a computer renders text into an image for presentation to the user.

Re:I'm so confused

[guybrush3pwood]

Technically, anything seen on a computer monitor / LCD screen / movie screen / etc is an image, regardless of whether there's text on it or not.

Technically, it's your brain's interpretation of the photons traveling from the monitor to your eyes.

Re:I'm so confused

[No Lucifer]

Hmm... it strikes me that the example you used would be covered under existing harassment laws. If someone sends me an offensive image (or before it gets to that point, as appropriate), I go to the county courthouse and get a restraining order filed against them. If they break the order, they are subject to penalties (not sure if they are civil or criminal). Is it better to go through the existing process?

Re:I'm so confused

[hairyfeet]

Don't forget this is also the state where they passed a "don't say gay" bill, like not saying the word will magically make gay teens straight. Pretty sad considering all the press about that 13 year old who committed suicide over being bullied for being gay. I did enjoy Star Trek's George Takei and his take on it, if you haven't seen it his advice is to just say Takei. I think I may buy one of the shirts the rainbow Star trek logo is kinda cute.

As someone who live in AR allow me to say, keep it up TN! You may us look less backward all the time! While you are passing crazy laws like this and the don't say gay bill we've gotten too large and very nice gay communities in our two largest cities, we have a nice symphony and plays in the park, if you haven't come down it is actually quite nice here now. So keep it up TN, you make us look better every day. And Go Hogs!

Re:I'm so confused

[tehcyder]

I doubt that crude racist jokes are seen as offensive in Tennessee.

Re:I'm so confused

[tehcyder]

Technically, anything seen on a computer monitor / LCD screen / movie screen / etc is an image, regardless of whether there's text on it or not.

Technically, it's your brain's interpretation of the photons traveling from the monitor to your eyes.

Technically, nothing exists outside my mind and all images are internal hallucinations projected onto the alleged outside world.

Re:I'm so confused

[guybrush3pwood]

Technically, anything seen on a computer monitor / LCD screen / movie screen / etc is an image, regardless of whether there's text on it or not.

Technically, it's your brain's interpretation of the photons traveling from the monitor to your eyes.

Technically, nothing exists outside my mind and all images are internal hallucinations projected onto the alleged outside world.

Solipsism? Man, you're such a hippie!

Re:I'm so confused

[xenobyte]

Ah. the Nikki Catsouras case... No sympathy there. Spoiled girl high on drugs steal Daddy's Porsche and drive it insanely and ends up hitting a concrete wall or similar at ridiculous high speed, getting severely smashed up in the process. The accident scene photos ends up on the net where they still are, thanks to the Streisand Effect (the more someone tries to have something removed from the net, the more it spreads). They're easy to find if you Google her name.

Her stupid antics could have killed dozens of random people but only ended up costing her her own life. It's perfectly okay to use these pictures to illustrate the dangers of drugs as she lost all rights to privacy by doing such a stupid stunt. Her parents should stop complaining about the leaked pictures and consider what they did wrong to have her ending up in bloody pieces like that, the use the efforts on educating others parents about it.

Re:I'm so confused

[yt8znu35]

The law does not specify intent. Also, there is a big different between harassing someone via the telephone (direct, person-to-person) and, say, posting a pic on your own website or social networking page. So it's open season on any image that your_group_here does not like. If you are a Southern Baptist/evangelical/teabagger/whatever, that image could be of just about anything--a mosque, Catholic icons, cap from Southpark, or even simply Obama.

Re:I'm so confused

[losthought]

I'd mod you up to 6 if I had mod points and it were possible.

I am a Tennessee resident and also IANAL. I was about to get all up-in-arms and send an angry email off to Gov. Haslam's office when I read this story but, fortunately, I decided to actually read up on what this "new" law is. It is, indeed, an update to the Harassment laws on the books for TN. This law covers directed communication with a malicious intent. Simply re-posting goatse images on your blog does not put you in violation of this law. Re-posting goatse images with an attached threat to a specific individual or group probably would, though.

Should harassment be protected free speech?

Re:I'm so confused

[sumdumass]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I didn't ever say that words and images that offend people was a form of harassment, i said it was harassment using those forms of communication.

There is a difference that you don't seem to be able to grasp. One is just sitting there, the other is a tool to obtain a goal for a purpose. That goal and purpose or intent is harassment of a specific person or group of people. One is innocent, and the other is malicious by design.

Re:I'm so confused

[sumdumass]

I'm not here to ague the merits of the case. However, the photos should have never been released in the way they were and the crutch of the liability revolved around them being used to harass the parents.

Even if her stupid antics did kill dozens of people, is that justification to harass her parents and family if they were not involved in it at all? She may have very well deserved to die, but does that mean her mother deserves to have hate mail with pictures of the decapitated body that was released by officers of the law who responded to the scene of an emergency? That isn't exactly about the girl who dies, but the people who loved her yet had nothing to do with her death

Re:I'm so confused

[sumdumass]

Why would it strike you? I clearly stated is was likely a poorly executed attempt at extending existing laws. The laws on this vary from state to state and in some cases municipality to municipality. I do not know the existing laws of that state or how effective they are, but I do know that law makers all over the place think they are really doing something constructive when they rewrite laws using internet terms to update it for the hip new digital age.

I don't see any reason why this law isn't one of those situations that has gone horribly wrong.

Re:I'm so confused

[cheekyjohnson]

I didn't ever say that words and images that offend people was a form of harassment

I didn't say that you did.

i said it was harassment using those forms of communication.

Label things that you don't like as "harassment" and suddenly it's "bad" and should be stopped.

One is innocent, and the other is malicious by design.

Except that the end result is the same: "I don't like images or words whose intent is so harm others. Therefore, they should be banned!"

It just comes down to not liking them, even if they don't do any real kind of harm that a person can't prevent by just being strong-minded. I see no reason that people should get in trouble because you don't like what they said on the phone (which is what it seemingly comes down to) or somewhere else. If there's no way to block them, then that is a problem with the device.

Re:I'm so confused

[cromar]

I have a right to be offended by your joke. I appreciate the point you are making, but you are also sort of making the point that you are a bit crude and willfully offensive. Now, that's well within your rights, but I don't think it helps the cause of free speech much. I imagine you are righteously pissed-off about the state of civil liberties in America and much else of the world, and I can't say that I blame you. But, given that few people even seem to understand freedom of speech and its implications for a free society (as much as they understand that), it might help to present your arguments in a way that would be accessible to more people.

Re:I'm so confused

[cromar]

It's hard to talk about religion, specifically Christianity, in public schools, much harder in some places than others. To me this is the same type of censorship. It seems that very few people understand the line between learning about something and sponsoring it. This is just the other shoe falling. It's about time that the US started to value true freedoms again. Otherwise we will remain caught up in these stupid arguments about whether it's OK for a student to know his teacher is a devotee of some religion, or whether a student should know that there are gay people in the world.

Re:I'm so confused

[cromar]

It's always refreshing to see reaffirmed the bigotry so inherent in the US. But hey, it's fun to make generalizations about all Tennesseans. They're all racist fucks, right? Even if people aren't so vocal about their bigotry in the noble part of the country from which you obviously hail, there are still plenty of bigots willing to classify people based on where they live or the color of their skin.

If you can't see it, you needn't look very far or very long to find it.

Re:I'm so confused

[sumdumass]

harassment is a specific intent of actions. You don't label things harassment, you label the intent of those things.

Do you understand? Your mom could have just passed away, I could have not knowing that, taken a picture of her and crafted it in a way showing her corps having bestiality type relations while smoking crack cocain then post it on display somewhere. That wouldn't be harassment on it's own. It would be in poor taste and rude of me, but not harassment. When I notify you with the intent of causing emotional distress because of something going on between us, then it can become harassment. It's like a gun, it can be use to kill, for the wrong reasons, and sometimes for the right reasons. It's not unlawful to shoot and kill someone in certain situations,

I suggest you spend some time figuring out what harassment actually is too. It is not you all the sudden being offended or disliking something. It is me trying to offend you or scare you or do something to you that wouldn't otherwise be illegal for the purpose of causing you distress..Me saying a cuss-word on the phone with you wouldn't be harassment. ME calling you all the time and cussing you out would be.

Re:I'm so confused

[cheekyjohnson]

You don't label things harassment, you label the intent of those things.

Okay, but that changes nothing.

It's like a gun

Not at all. When you get shot by a gun, you have no choice but for your body to be damaged. When you see something that is offensive to you (what this boils down to, because whether or not they intended for it to offend you is inconsequential) you can easily just ignore it or move on without anything happening to you. It's your choice how to act.

I suggest you spend some time figuring out what harassment actually is too. It is not you all the sudden being offended or disliking something.

But that is exactly what the law boils down to. "I don't like harassment, and if people say things to others with the intent of emotionally harming them, then they must be stopped!" In other words, they don't like harassment, so anything deemed as harassment must be stopped (according to them). Also, there is no magical way to accurately guess someone's intent, even if they do something repeatedly.

ME calling you all the time and cussing you out would be.

And it changes nothing. Repeatedly saying something does not change the fact that what you are saying is speech. The ones who can't handle mere words/images/videos probably won't last long in this world (or at least, they won't be emotionally well). I'm certainly not in favor of helping them. Not in the least.

Re:I'm so confused

[hairyfeet]

The problem with whether you should know what your teacher believes in is many are whacko so yeah, please keep religion out of schools. I know because we pulled my two boys out of public school in the 5th grade because a teacher actually brought her bible into class and gave a 45 minute lecture on "Godless heathens and sodomites" when my two boys where in class. FYI one is Catholic, the other is gay. Yes we could have sued and owned the fucking school (which is what I wanted to do) but at the time my sister was in the last stage of a terminal illness and frankly the rest of the family had too much stress already to deal with that on top.

But in the case of being gay, we aren't talking about "advocating" one way or another, we are talking about teachers actively supporting bashing either by inaction or basically taking the attitude "God hates fags so they get what they deserve". Replace the word gay with black or Jew and see how long this shit would be allowed. Religious bigotry is one of the few openly bigoted stances this country allows anymore, and frankly it really needs to end.

Re:I'm so confused

[cromar]

Still seems like two sides of the same coin to me. Just because you think a teacher is "whacko," shouldn't curtail their right to do what they want with their lives and to be open about it, as long as they are just teaching kids about religion intellectually. To me it doesn't seem so hard to see where the line is between establishing religion and talking about it or expressing it openly.

Likewise, other people will think a teacher is "whacko" for talking about homosexuality or, really, a whole slew of other sexual topics in the classroom. The travesty of US education is that we don't seem able to distinguish the free flow of information in a free society from indoctrination. The anecdote you give is obviously a case of indoctrination and establishment of religion, in that the teacher was using his or her position of authority to influence the students.

In a free society we can't just pretend the bogeys aren't there. Controversy and discussion are essential to free society, and it is counterproductive to restrict it. We should encourage debate of these topics precisely because they are controversial, and because our preoccupation with them is destroying any real progress in politics (away from corruption). That's why restricting teachers too much in either regard encourages divisiveness and political bickering.

Re:I'm so confused

[sumdumass]

Not at all. When you get shot by a gun, you have no choice but for your body to be damaged. When you see something that is offensive to you (what this boils down to, because whether or not they intended for it to offend you is inconsequential) you can easily just ignore it or move on without anything happening to you. It's your choice how to act.

and here is how I know you have no clue what harassment is. If you have to change or alter your lifestyle and habits to avid someones malicious intent, then it is harassment. The harassment is where they seek you out and attempt to harass you. IT is not you just stumbling over something one day and getting shocked or upset over it. It's specifically like the guy who goes and looks for you with the gun. Spend some time figuring out what harassment actually is.

But that is exactly what the law boils down to. "I don't like harassment, and if people say things to others with the intent of emotionally harming them, then they must be stopped!" In other words, they don't like harassment, so anything deemed as harassment must be stopped (according to them). Also, there is no magical way to accurately guess someone's intent, even if they do something repeatedly

First, from the start, I said this law went wrong several time. Second, you don't seem to be arguing what harassment is or isn't, you seem to be arguing what you don't want it to be, Figure it the fuck out, then consider this abomination within that context. Only then will anything be able to be done about changing the law to something more sane and dealing with the original intent which should be much more limited then this. I get sick and tired of people crying that a law is how they do not like and no one is willing to change it when they won't even bother remotely investigating the intentions of the law in order to point out how it could be worded better or changed to something more acceptable. Instead they whine about their current interpretation and ignore any intent then bitch and complain about it never being overturned because it only gets used in a way that is consistent with it's original intent which may be valid.

And it changes nothing. Repeatedly saying something does not change the fact that what you are saying is speech. The ones who can't handle mere words/images/videos probably won't last long in this world (or at least, they won't be emotionally well). I'm certainly not in favor of helping them. Not in the least.actually, whether you like it or not, speech has been limited for almost the entirety of the country when it is certain types or forms of speech as well when it uses certain vehicles of delivery.

You seem to be the oddball looking in on this.

Re:I'm so confused

[cheekyjohnson]

and here is how I know you have no clue what harassment is.

I know what it is. I just don't think that harassment done using mere words, images, or text is serious in the least.

If you have to change or alter your lifestyle and habits to avid someones malicious intent, then it is harassment.

You've explained that. I fully understand.

Second, you don't seem to be arguing what harassment is or isn't, you seem to be arguing what you don't want it to be

Is that what it looks like to you? I'm merely saying that I don't believe that harassment using mere words, images, or text is a serious issue in the least.

I get sick and tired of people crying that a law is how they do not like and no one is willing to change it

It's possible that they don't have the means to change it without enough public support, or they just don't think going through the effort is worth it (but posting their objections to it is quite easy, and maybe for some, perhaps even fun).

actually, whether you like it or not, speech has been limited for almost the entirety of the country when it is certain types or forms of speech as well when it uses certain vehicles of delivery.

And I'm well aware of that. That doesn't mean that it's constitutional, though (not that you said that it was).

You seem to be the oddball looking in on this.

Does that even matter?

Re:I'm so confused

[sumdumass]

Is that what it looks like to you? I'm merely saying that I don't believe that harassment using mere words, images, or text is a serious issue in the least.

I think you will find that most people and the law would consider the act of harassment to be the problem, not the vehicle chosen to get it done. It's one of the things that signifies r distinguishes harassment from other intents or states of mind.

It's possible that they don't have the means to change it without enough public support, or they just don't think going through the effort is worth it (but posting their objections to it is quite easy, and maybe for some, perhaps even fun).

IT's a little mre complicated then that. Take the copyright laws. The majoreity of people think they were created in the state they are now because of bribes from Disney and big media. They are actually the result of international treaty that the US signed on to. In most cases, the US followed Europe's lead in the changes too. So they go to their representative saying change this law and stop taking bribes from Disney and the congressman say, your crazy, I'm going to ignore you. In this case, it's being argued that the means to which harassment is happening is ridiculous to consider when the fact is that the laws and people concerned with it are paying attention to the behavior to which they find unacceptable.

Now they go to the representative and media outlets saying this is bad, repeal it.. The lawmakers say, well harassing people is bad too. They reply I know, now repeal it. The law makers say, does not compute and ignores the request

And I'm well aware of that. That doesn't mean that it's constitutional, though (not that you said that it was).

Not all of the attempts are constitutional. But the supreme court has upheld a surprisingly large set of limits on free speech. I would believe they would uphold this concept as constitutional as it's the behavior, not the speech that is in question.

Note that I said concept. This is because I believe this law is a failure, but i understand what the objective was in making it.

Re:I'm so confused

[cheekyjohnson]

I think you will find that most people and the law would consider the act of harassment to be the problem, not the vehicle chosen to get it done

Well, to me, the vehicle chosen to get it done matters very much. If nothing physical is happening, they can likely choose whether or not to be offended. It all comes down to someone's mindset. If it's not physical harassment, it will only 'hurt' you if you let it. Not to say that what I think matters a whole lot when the laws are already laid out.

But the supreme court has upheld a surprisingly large set of limits on free speech.

And that doesn't make it constitutional, either. Just because the supreme court says it is in compliance with the constitution, that does not mean it is.

I would believe they would uphold this concept as constitutional as it's the behavior, not the speech that is in question.

You could literally limit any speech using this excuse. "It was their behavior, not the speech! They had an anti-government attitude, so we arrested them!" Yes, we are talking about harassment here, but the excuse used above could be used to limit any speech. Why stop at malicious intent? Because you don't like it? As long as they're just speaking, they've physically harmed no one, and whether or not the person was harmed is their own choice.

Re:I'm so confused

[sumdumass]

Well, to me, the vehicle chosen to get it done matters very much. If nothing physical is happening, they can likely choose whether or not to be offended. It all comes down to someone's mindset. If it's not physical harassment, it will only 'hurt' you if you let it. Not to say that what I think matters a whole lot when the laws are already laid out.

it really is more complicated then this. Suppose I robbed a store and you were a witness to it. I send you an article from a dated Time Magazine about a crook who killed all the witnesses at his trial and their families but I scratch that crook's name out and write mine in. There is an understood threat there but no threat was actually made. so does it get ignored until I kill the witnesses or attempt to anyways? Or is it acted upon as if I actually said, if you testify against me, I will kill you and your family?

And that doesn't make it constitutional, either. Just because the supreme court says it is in compliance with the constitution, that does not mean it is.

Well, yes it does in the effect that you have no ground to challenge the constitutionality of it. I understand what you are saying, there are a lot of things that a literal interpretation of the constitution seems to completely forbid. but if the courts say it's ok, then you can't stop it from happening constitutionally.

You could literally limit any speech using this excuse. "It was their behavior, not the speech! They had an anti-government attitude, so we arrested them!" Yes, we are talking about harassment here, but the excuse used above could be used to limit any speech. Why stop at malicious intent? Because you don't like it? As long as they're just speaking, they've physically harmed no one, and whether or not the person was harmed is their own choice.

Not really.. the people making the speech would still need the behavior and the behavior would still need to be something that was unacceptable to society. This is not something new. There have been laws against inciting a riot for much of the existence of this country. Sometimes those laws have been abused, but the courts have held them to a strict standard of specific intent. For instance, you can stand in front of an angry mob and tell them about all the reasons they should be mad at the government, or a company or some person or anything. You can tell them how you would like to see harm done to them. But when the crowd turns from listening to your speech to doing what you spoke about, you then fall into risk of violation to the laws.

Re:I'm so confused

[cheekyjohnson]

it really is more complicated then this. Suppose I robbed a store and you were a witness to it. I send you an article from a dated Time Magazine about a crook who killed all the witnesses at his trial and their families but I scratch that crook's name out and write mine in.

The police would investigate it. The crime wasn't writing your name, it was the robbery (which they can't be sure you did yet). If they investigate and find that you didn't do anything, they should let you go.

Not really.. the people making the speech would still need the behavior and the behavior would still need to be something that was unacceptable to society.

And if certain behavior became unacceptable to society (such as speaking out against the government), then what? The situation is as follows: "I don't like what you said, but I can't arrest you based on that, so I'm going to say it's because of your behavior!" The point of freedom of speech is to protect speech. Behavior is completely and utterly irrelevant. I don't care for thought crimes (trying to guess someone's "intent").

Re:I'm so confused

[sumdumass]

The police would investigate it. The crime wasn't writing your name, it was the robbery (which they can't be sure you did yet). If they investigate and find that you didn't do anything, they should let you go.

actually, you will find in most jurisdictions, there is a crime if intimidating a witness and possible retaliation of a witness in addition to any robbery crimes specifically because I wrote my name and sent it to specific people.

And if certain behavior became unacceptable to society (such as speaking out against the government), then what? The situation is as follows: "I don't like what you said, but I can't arrest you based on that, so I'm going to say it's because of your behavior!" The point of freedom of speech is to protect speech. Behavior is completely and utterly irrelevant. I don't care for thought crimes (trying to guess someone's "intent").

You can't really argue that certain behavior such as speaking out against the government isn't already illegal. The alien and sedition act was one of them passed in the times of our founding fathers. Because of the attempted but failed communist overthrow in the early 1900's, it was illegal to be a member of the communist part. that law survived world war two, and laid the basis for the McCarthy inquests in the 1950's and 1960's and was capable of being used until recently when it was removed from the books.

You will find that those laws are limited in their application and if abused, they are cut down quickly. You have the irrelevancy backwards though. The behavior is the important parts, the speech is irrelevant in some circumstances.

Re:I'm so confused

[cheekyjohnson]

actually, you will find in most jurisdictions, there is a crime if intimidating a witness and possible retaliation of a witness in addition to any robbery crimes specifically because I wrote my name and sent it to specific people.

I didn't say the opposite. I'm talking about my own opinion.

You can't really argue that certain behavior such as speaking out against the government isn't already illegal.

And I definitely don't agree with it. I think all speech should be free, regardless of intent. The only thing I care about is actions.

You have the irrelevancy backwards though.

Sorry, but what is and isn't relevant (especially on a subject such as this) is subjective. I'm just giving my own opinion.

The behavior is the important parts

I disagree. I couldn't care less about what someone "thinks" or what their "intent" is. I just care about what they actually do (besides just conveying their thoughts).

Re:I'm so confused

[sumdumass]

Intent can be demonstrated through action and as a result of action, it can reasonable be determined. In the situation I mentioned where I send correspondence to witnesses of my crime, there is along a handful of reasons I would otherwise legitimately do that. When you examine what I sent, that list narrows greatly. When you examine what I altered, then sent, it's completely reasonable to assume the only intend I had was to intimidate the witnesses through indirect threats to their and their family's safety if they should testify against me. Saying it was an artistic representation of the neo-political environment and not a threat is somehow lacking integrity.

So I guess the only thing left to do is agree, that we do disagree and we will likely not change each others opinions on it. This is actually good and well because in order to keep my opinion in check, we need people with your opinion forcing me to make a case. That alone will trim a lot of the abuse or potential abuse and lay the seed of ideas that will stop it from being abused for long in reality.

Re:I'm so confused

[cheekyjohnson]

Intent can be demonstrated through action and as a result of action

No, it can't. The fact that you can't think of anything else that it could be does not mean a reason does not exist, and the burden of proof is on you. But, as I said, I don't personally care about their intentions. I don't like thought crimes.

reasonable

Which is subjective.

Saying it was an artistic representation of the neo-political environment and not a threat is somehow lacking integrity.

I didn't say that, but whether it is or is not an artistic representation is subjective.

So I guess the only thing left to do is agree, that we do disagree and we will likely not change each others opinions on it.

I guess so.

This is actually good and well because in order to keep my opinion in check, we need people with your opinion forcing me to make a case. That alone will trim a lot of the abuse or potential abuse and lay the seed of ideas that will stop it from being abused for long in reality.

I agree with that.

No more FB for Governer Bill Haslam

[defaria]

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!

Re:I am not in Tennessee.

[SuricouRaven]

It wasn't when I posted. When a new story is posted, Slashdot does the zerg thing.

Thanks, i needed that info

[FudRucker]

next time i am in Tennessee i will be sure to only insult or offend people only while in person

I love this law

[houghi]

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.

Re:I love this law

[Anonymous Coward]

Finale we are ALL criminals. Perhaps now people will get off their fat asses and use their second amendment instead of talking about it.

No. You've got the boxes totally in the wrong order.

Soap: The bill hasn't been passed yet. If you live in TN, you have my condolences, but you're in a better position to stop this madness than the rest of us. Write your representative and inform him in no uncertain terms that you've just become a single-issue voter over this. If he comes down on the side of American values and supports the First Amendment, you'll campaign for him. If he does the opposite, you'll campaign for the other guy. Talk to your friends. Spread the word. Turn heads, turn minds, and turn campaigns around.

Ballot: ...and when the election comes, follow through. If your representative votes for this censorship bill, vote for his opponent - even if his opponent is a pro-life hippie potsmoker who would mandate the teaching of creationism public schools. Anybody. But. The. Guy. Who. Voted. For. Censorship.

Jury: ...and if you get busted for saying "FUCK" on a public Interweb, trust in a jury of your peers to understand that if you can't say "FUCK", you can't say "FUCK THE TENNESSEE STATE LEGISLATURE". And if you find yourself on the jury, consider researching your rights and duties as they pertain to nullifications. Do not lie under oath: if asked, tell them you believe this law is an ass, and that you will under no circumstances vote to convict. If the court can't find 12 people willing to convict during voir dire (jury selection), they can't seat a jury, and they can't proceed with a trial.

Ammo: As for America, yeah, we've been there, done that. We called it the Civil War. It sucked.

The point of Ed Howdershelt's "Four Boxes in the defense of liberty: Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo. Use them in that order" quote was not to call people to arms. It was a reminder that you have an obligation to do whatever it takes to keep the fourth box closed.

Re:I love this law

[Evtim]

This!

Consider - between sex, drug use (legal or illegal), file-sharing and posting offensive images, is there a SINGLE person on this planet that cannot be successfully smeared or locked away if he/she becomes a nuisance. I know, you can find an example but throw in the mix "terrorist", "aiding the enemy", the whole variety of religious prescriptions, "enemy of the state and the social harmony" and so on and eventually you cover every living soul.

Hey, they borrowed this from Christianity - we are all sinners. Forever. From the moment of birth to the death. I wonder if the Vatican will sue for copyright infringement.

Obligatory Quote

[Codeman125]

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.

Communications Decency Act, Redux

[cje]

Welcome to 1996, Tennessee!

I'm illegal in TN

[HangingChad]

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?

Re:I am not in Tennessee.

[easyTree]

I'm offended that you're offended. I'll see you in jail.

What could possibly go wrong?

[rts008]

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. ;-)

How do the rest of us compete?

[dweller_below]

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

Goatse?

[alfredo]

That's no more offensive than Rick Santorum or Palin.

backward-ass hillbillies

[e3m4n]

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!"

Re:backward-ass hillbillies

[sconeu]

If two people get married in Tennessee and divorced in West Virginia, are they still brother and sister?

As a former Tennessean...

[kenrblan]

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:

1. Don't Say Gay - Teachers in TN can't acknowledge the existence of homosexuality in the classroom
2. Ban on Sharia Law
3. Overturning a Nashville Metro Anti-discrimination law with a state law making local government laws on discrimination illegal
4. Making it illegal for teachers to unionize
5. Anti-evolution education / Protection to teach Creationism

To put it simply, the Tennessee Legislature is putting the state on the path to race to the bottom. Congratulations Mississippi and Arkansas!

Re:As a former Tennessean...

[Dwonis]

Ban on Sharia Law

Why is that bad? I thought justice was supposed to be blind.

Re:As a former Tennessean...

[kenrblan]

It's bad because it specifically targets one religion. That runs contrary to the concept of separation of church and state. Also, the legislature was wasting time debating and voting on this when it is not even remotely a problem in the state. There's not a single community in Tennessee where Muslims are concentrated enough to affect government policy to enact parts of Sharia Law on a town or city.

Kentucky declares War on Tennessee

[blair1q]

or at least part of Kentucky does

Real Q: Const. covers feds; what of state laws?

[zooblethorpe]

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,

Re:Real Q: Const. covers feds; what of state laws?

[Adrian Lopez]

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".

See Incorporation Doctrine.

Re:Real Q: Const. covers feds; what of state laws?

[afidel]

State laws are challenged under the constitution all the time, see Miller vs California and American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland for specific cases involving state and local law and free speech.

With apologies to Chandler Bing

[chargersfan420]

"Yes, I was really sad too, when the artist stopped drawing the deer."

Offended? Thanks for your concern.

[alexhs]

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".

subject

[Legion303]

Dear Tennessee government:

8===D ~o

Re:subject

[billkent]

tenngov Tennessee Government
Knew we should have unfollowed @RepWeiner
9 Jun

bye bye

[nonicknameavailable]

atheism pictures are now banned because atheism is offensive to christians

Tenn. Const. seems to lack freedom of speech

[zooblethorpe]

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,

Re:Tenn. Const. seems to lack freedom of speech

[idontgno]

Guarantee of freedom of speech

This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)(dicta).

For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press -- which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress -- are among the fundamental personal rights and "liberties" protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.

-- Gitlow v. New York

Politcal exemption?

[sgunhouse]

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.

Wait a minute...

[Roduku]

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?

Tennessee meet 4chan, 4chan meet Tennessee...

[Pyrus.mg]

OpTennessee can't be far off now.

"Erleichda!" of a heavier sort

[zooblethorpe]

Cool, thank you! And here is the kicker, with regard to TFA:

Guarantee of freedom of speech

• This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Gitlow v. New York , 268 U.S. 652 (1925)(dicta).

Which brings us back to the question of just what the bejeebus the knuckleheaded state legislators think they're doing...

Cheers,

Re:I am not in Tennessee.

[Anonymous Coward]

In before someone posts Goatse.

http://d.facdn.net/art/mearu/1291214087.mearu_tigerlilycopy-1.jpg

Why do painters always draw breasts and asses but they never, ever try to draw a vulva? Is there some secret oath you take when you become an artist that prohibits this? Are we so neutered that secondary female sex characteristics are acceptable but not primary? Why is there a double standard where nude sculptures and paintings depecting men routinely show penises and testicles but those depecting women show a blank featureless crotch or the legs are conveniently closed or something is in front of the genitals?

Funny how after all the feminism, liberalism, the sexual revolution, etc., the vagina is still treated like some kind of shameful taboo and art reflects this. Don't women find this offensive? I mean the core of their physical sexuality is treated as anathema even tasteful non-pornographic portrayals of it. How about religious people, the implication being that everything God created is good (He said so) oh yeah except this one thing, God goofed up there. Anybody else think that's not compatible with a perfect all-knowing Creator?

Can somebody make this make sense? Or is this just another fundamental neurosis of a society that fucking loves violence but still cannot handle sex in a mature fashion?

Incorporation Doctrine

[zooblethorpe]

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,

Incorporation Doctrine

[zooblethorpe]

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,

Re:I am not in Tennessee.

[Toonol]

Perhaps it's because of reverence, not revulsion.

In other news...

[EvilXenu]

The Joo Janta Corporation reports a down-tick in peril-sensitive sunglasses sales on a mostly harmless planet in the vicinity of Sol.

Wait a Minute...

[Lysander7]

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.

Welcome to the UK

[nurb432]

This is how they have it, its illegal to offend anyone for an reason.

Lets hear it for free speech.

In Soviet Russia

[wideBlueSkies]

That's where the law belongs.. In Soviet Russia.

Stupid Nonsense

[jkeelsnc]

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.

Such a shame.

[Tolkien]

The only remaining legally displayable image.

Re:Such a shame.

[Tacvek]

Ahhh..... Oh my god! My eyes! You bastard. That kitten sleeping in a cereal bowl so greatly offends me.

Somebody stole the poor thing's soul by taking a photograph of it....

</humor> (This is SGML, with the start tag optional).
Sorry. I think there is no safe image anymore in Tennessee.

Re:Such a shame.

[currently_awake]

Is that a SPOON!?!!!! He's eating a kitten?!! I'm offended!

Re:Such a shame.

[Evtim]

Whooph, whoof, grrrrr.... (I am a dog, you insensitive clod!)

Concerned?

[DaMattster]

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."

Re:Abortion zealots will be a nice target.

[Lanteran]

Responding to AC troll, but what's wrong with being anti-abortion? I'm sure many moderators here would disagree, but it's a legitimate viewpoint. It's my opinion that as soon as it has become a life form with unique DNA, different from both partners, it's not strictly a part of the woman's body- it's an independent life form though it requires nutrition. But that's just me.

It's a political booby trap set up by the Repubs

[stoicfaux]

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.

Assbackwards law

[reboot246]

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.

Re:I am not in Tennessee.

[Xtifr]

Why do painters always draw breasts and asses but they never, ever try to draw a vulva?

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the works of Georgia O'Keeffe. :)

stupid

[aahpandasrun]

So much for small government...

Uh oh Netflix

[Eightbitgnosis]

Looks like it's children's programing only for Tennessee.
Better get the horror section down pronto

Re:Uh oh Netflix

[theripper]

I find children's programming to be offensive.

Re:Abortion zealots will be a nice target.

[losfromla]

It's my opinion that the egg-sperm combination becomes a human at some point between conception and emergence from the womb. I don't think it is when the cells start to divide and become 4, or 8, or 16, or even 1024. I think it happens sometime around when the brain actually begins to function. I think that if one goes in with the position that you hold, one will never arrive at a solution. At the other end of the spectrum from you is the abortion happy guy who thinks that it's cool to shove a pair of scissors into the skull as long as the child has not exited the vagina. I think both you and him are wrong (him, criminally so, in my opinion) but, I think that if you ante'd up with a more reasonable number, and so did your opposite twin, we'd be more likely to arrive at a reasonable meeting point regarding a cut-off time-frame for abortions.

Offensive is in the eye of the beholder

[woboyle]

"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...

Scary movies?

[drdrgivemethenews]

Did scary movies stop frightening people (especially children) somewhere back there?

This is really serious bunkum. Any sane judge will toss it in minutes.

Re:Scary movies?

[UBfusion]

This was my thought too.. I'd certainly miss pics and trailers from gory zombie movies on IMDB.

Goatse

[cela0811]

Quick!! Goatse them!!!

I see...

[Ralph Spoilsport]

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.

good move

[vonkas]

It's really important that such legislation is tested. I'm glad though, that it's not in my backyard!

Subjective

[Mistakill]

What if i find Political Party logos, slogans, religious icons and slogans offensive?

Re:Abortion zealots will be a nice target.

[petman]

... but no one is forced Not to do anything.

The fetus is forced Not to be borne.

Re:Abortion zealots will be a nice target.

[petman]

Instead of working to make abortions unnecessary...

Well, anti-abortionists think that abortions are never necessary.

What I want to know is...

[Stone2065]

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...

First Amendment Anyone?

[tony1343]

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.

Well, I guess I'm in trouble

[Dwonis]

You want an offensive image? You've got it.

So, lemme get this straight...

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:So, lemme get this straight...

[Opportunist]

It's NOW illegal...

Sorry, I promise I won't post anymore 'fore I had my first coffee.

Who Won The Civil War?

[Zamphatta]

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?

Re:Who Won The Civil War?

[yacc143]

Lol, you mean the US constitution that is bended (and arguably broken) by the Federal government every day? (I mean everything is in-scope for the federal government, because it's clearly visible that a hot dog stand could engage in interstate commerce, right? Fresh Hot Dogs delivered via FedEX anyone?)

Re:Abortion zealots will be a nice target.

[dryeo]

... but no one is forced Not to do anything.

The fetus is forced Not to be borne.

Which in some circumstances is better then forcing the fetus to be born.

Does this apply to victims outside the US?

[yacc143]

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?

Bill Haslam is offensive

[WaffleMonster]

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.

With a bit of Luck

[JinjaontheNile]

Something good will come of this law
Goatse will disappear forever in case someone in Tennessee sees it (I doubt it)

Re:Abortion zealots will be a nice target.

[Eivind]

The interesting thing is that more liberal countries have a lot LESS abortions, not more like the christian right in USA claim would be the consequence.

Teenage pregnancies are several times higher in USA than in Scandinavia, for example. The reason is primarily that when people panic and go into denial mode, teenagers get the picture and stop talking to their parents about sex at all. (or taking advice - if the only advice you're gonna get is "stay a virgin until you're 30!" who would listen?)

Which teenager has the best chance of practicing safe sex ?

The one who's scared, drunk at a party, or in the back-seat of some car, with parents that'd panic if they found condoms or other contraceptives.

Or the one who has parents who are reasonable. Who accept that their daughter is a sexual being. Who let's boyfriends sleep over, and makes sure that the daughter knows which drawer has condoms in it. Who is able to talk about these things in a non-panicked way. "Now that Eivind is sleeping over here sort of regularily, do you think we should schedule an appointment at the doc's for you to clear any questions you may have and get contraceptive pills, if that's what you want?"

You don't have to guess at the answer - you just have to compare the stats on teenage-pregnancies or abortions.

Scandinavia wins 8:1 on either. (as in has -less- of them)

i am thoroughly offended

[KingBenny]

by any image of mickey mouse, hello kitty, or a smiling barack obama, please take them down asap

'Offence'

[dugeen]

The idea of causing 'offence' is the new weapon of choice in the authoritarian war against dissent.

one word...so much fear and disgust...

[rangerfan558]

goatse

They got ME for profanity down there....

[Kaitiff]

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!"

Unconstitutional

[StormReaver]

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.

Re:Abortion zealots will be a nice target.

[budgenator]

The problem is many anti-abortionists also believe that contraception is morally the same as artificially induced abortion; hell even masturbating is the same as artificially induced abortion! Some how they've come to the conclusion that sex is a sin to the point they are refusing to give their children a vaccine against cancer causing viruses, because the virus is occasionally transmitted sexually.

Dolly Parton offends me...

[vaporland]

Where do I sign up to have her image removed from the internets?

Obviously...

[Kamiza Ikioi]

... 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.

Re:I am not in Tennessee.

[Coren22]

Wait, what?

Citation please, I missed something when I went to elementary school:

http://www.aps.edu/aps/Okeeffe/default.html

Re:I am not in Tennessee.

[Xtifr]

Citation from http://www.georgia-okeeffe.com/imagesgallery.html:

Her work has often been said to represent sexual images, a critique O'Keeffe denied, stating she only painted what she saw in the flower, nothing more, nothing less. Still, it is easy to see how the label of "sexual images" was attached to some paintings (for example, Black Iris, Jack-in-the-Pulpit VI).

Of course, a lot of people simply think she was forced to deny it given the political climate of the time. Heck, the first I ever heard of her, it was as "that woman who paints vulvas disguised as flowers."

If you're still not convinced, just do an image search for "grey line with black blue and yellow". I know several people who have a print of that, and I assure you that none of them think it's anything but a va-jay-jay. no matter what the artist may have intended! :)

Re:Abortion zealots will be a nice target.

[Lanteran]

OK, that is... in a phrase, batshit insane.

How do you define what is an offensive image?

[lsatenstein]

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.

Re:I am not in Tennessee.

[SuricouRaven]

I would guess that it's harder to draw.