Slashdot Mirror
Tennessee Bans Posting 'Offensive' Images Online
Chaonici writes "Last Monday, Tennessee's Governer Bill Haslam signed a law prohibiting the transmission or display of an image that is likely to 'frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to' anyone who sees it. In Tennessee, it is already illegal to use other methods of communication, such as telephones or e-mail, to offend someone; the new law updates legislation to include images sent or posted online. However, the scope of this law is broader, in that anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court finds that a violator should have known that someone would be offended by the image in question, they face up to a year in prison or up to $2,500 in fines."
I'm pretty sure it would offend most people on here. Ironic that a law text should be able to break itself.
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.
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...
So if someone sends me an Image of the bill being signed into law, can I have the Governor locked up? If I lived there, I could argue that the bill intimidates me and causes emotional distress since I don't know if I'll be going to jail because someone found something I sent "offensive".
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
I'm sure some in the Tennessee leg finds this image NOT offensive in the least - they'd like to see more of it!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
hey Tennessee, Saudi Arabia called. They want their right to suppress free speech back.
Oh, can't wait for this come the winter seasons. Nativity scene on the front lawn of a government property should do just nicely. It would probably fall under at least one of the 'frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to' requirements for someone out there. What good is creating a poorly worded cudgel if everyone doesn't get a turn at using it? Heheee.
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
It will happen, it's part of life. How you deal with it is what matters. You can either be an adult, suck it up, and move on, or you can be a little crybaby bitch and turn it into a huge legal stink costing taxpayers money.
This is one of those bullshit laws that lawyers love. It doesn't even matter if they win a case on it, they still make off like bandits. How the hell they can even pretend to legislate something as completely subjective as "offense" is beyond me. If there were any real justice this would have been struck down as unconstitutional the moment it became law.
Good job, Tennessee, once again you've made the whole country look like a bunch of backward illiterate morons.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
I know a lot of people who are frightened of clowns, or spiders, or dogs, or women, or men, or.......
Or how bout emotional distress?? what if you post a picture with your new boyfriend/girlfriend, your ex sees that and that causes emotional distress. You could face a fine or go to jail for that?
No worries though, I'm sure this will only apply to things that frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a small select group of people...
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
It would mean the end of 4chan
And a female wearing a Burka is offensive to others.
Do they think through these laws?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
In before someone posts Goatse.
Too late...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
I am offended. Please go directly to jail.
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.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
The truth shall set you free!
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.
Duh, this will get slapped down harder than COPA, it has no chance of passing constitutional muster.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
You mean I can move to Tennessee and be guaranteed of never seeing Sarah Palin's picture again?
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
> Exactly. This law is going to exist until someone, anyone, brings it to trial for any reason. Any judge is going to take one look at this and strike it down.
Yes.
Did the people who voted for or signed the law ever take an oath to protect, preserve, or defend a Constitution including freedom of speech?
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
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.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
Sure they did. As did all members of congress, the executive, and the judiciary. You'll note how well *that* worked.
An oath without enforcement and punishment is utterly worthless unless the oath-giver has profoundly well established ethics that include the concept of personal honor in their foundation.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
They say offensive images. Wait... does that mean this text is legal:
What do you call a nigger with a stutter? A cocoon!
But if you took a screenshot of it and re-posted it, you'd be breaking the law?
Just askin'.
Mature adults can get past the crude joke and appreciate the question I am asking. The rest of you will get your panties in a wad over it and should probably consider moving to Tennessee, where the good benevolent government will support your desire to control what other people say, post, and laugh at, I mean um support the fact you got "offended" at something.
If some state has the balls to pass a law stating that "anyone person over the age of 18 who gets offended at what another person says, writes, or depicts and complains about it shall be guilty of a misdemeanor" then I am packing up my bags and moving THAT DAY. Can't we just have one place that doesn't validate the crybabies and tells them to get over it? Just one? The bleeding heart gutless pansies who want to live in a G-rated fantasy land can have the other 49. They outnumber the adults anyway.
I'm offended that you're offended. I'll see you in jail.
Requiem for the American Dream
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
"Yes, I was really sad too, when the artist stopped drawing the deer."
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.
See Incorporation Doctrine.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
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.
Only I can judge you.
"If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out"...
Most billboards offend me and cause me undue emotional distress. Ditto religious displays, pictures of cops beating people, and politicians giving speeches. The first time I saw Ronald Reagan on TV as the replacement announcer for Death Valley Days after the old ranger quit/died, I got nauseated, and blurted out (I was 5 or 6 at the time) "I don't trust that guy!", and never watched the show again. So, according to Tennessee law, pictures of Ronald Reagan should be banned...
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.