Tennessee Outlaws Transmission Of Emotionally Distressing Images

[WouldYouKindly]

I've always had the good sense to not look up goatse, I'm glad I still retain that sense.

Well, this is a dumb as hell law. I wonder if the Tennessee state assembly website will be annoyed by Anonymous. Would be disgusting/appropo for them to do something with the goatse, which to my understanding just from hanging around the net has something to do with an actual physical asshole, and replacing the governors picture or something.

EDIT: Though I think it would be fun to break this law by sending "disturbing" images to any state senator who voted yes on this law and the governor. That would suffice for me as your average denizen of the web, though I would make a specific screen name and use a proxy if I lived in Tennessee to frustrate any attempts to track me down.

 

[ImprovizoR]

Only in America.

It had to be said. Seriously this goes beyond retarded. Turns out I know more about American constitution than the state of Tennessee. And this is definitely unconstitutional. I think every sane person who knows how to interpret The Constitution will realize this.

 

[fulano]

Fuck yeah! Next step for Tennesse: WORD ARRANGEMENTS!

 

[Baneat]

Regardless of enforceability

Isn't this against the Constitution?

it is but the constitution is now just soemthing they wave around to gain office so they can then remove our freedoms in the name of security because an outside enemy scared us.

Well if I can see that it straight up defies the constitution (An overbearing set of rules) - don't the Supreme Court stamp right on its face as soon as it's even brought up? as in. "It's unconstitutional, clearly, it's not passed, simple as."

Though that fucking PATRIOT act wtf was that about.

If you guys don't defend that piece of paper to the end of the earth you're fucked, frankly.

 

[chimeracreator]

This actually isn't all that bad. That is not to say that I do not disagree with this law, but the article seems to get a lot wrong. In order for something to fall under the purvey of this law the person sending this content must have a specific target in mind (be it an individual or group) and must intend to offend them. If they don't intend to offend them then a common sense test can be applied, and if it could be reasonable assumed that it would offend this group that they were targeting with the communication then this could also apply.

Likewise you need to be able to show that you are using a communication method that is EXPECTED to reach the person or group that is intended or expected to be offended. If such a person or group needs to go out of their way to receive this communication, this law does not apply. So given their scenarios:

1. If you?re posting a picture of someone in an embarrassing situation ? not at all limited to, say, sexually themed pictures or illegally taken pictures ? you?re likely a criminal unless the prosecutor, judge, or jury concludes that you had a ?legitimate purpose.?

If you intend your audience to be more than that one person this law does not apply as they are not the intended recipient of the communication. Likewise the embarrassment they feel would most likely come from the fact that OTHERS received the communication, and emotional distress caused by defamation is not under the purvey of this law.

2. Likewise, if you post an image intended to distress some religious, political, ethnic, racial, etc. group, you too can be sent to jail if governments decisionmaker thinks your purpose wasn?t ?legitimate.? Nothing in the law requires that the picture be of the ?victim,? only that it be distressing to the ?victim.?

This is only true if you have reasonable expectation to believe that people who view the image will find it offensive. For example, posting a picture of Jesus having sex with a goat on a Christian message board.

3. The same is true even if you didn?t intend to distress those people, but reasonably should have known that the material ? say, pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group ? would ?cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities.?

True, and this is the crux of the problem.

4. And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.

Also true, and why I oppose this.

 

[Michael Brunson]

That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. I officially give up on my state... California will you adopt me? I'm intelligent, open-minded and an all around nice guy.

 

[xerounlimited]

Crappy law is crappy.
Who's to say what is offensive and what's not? The government? The people?
Well if the latter I am going to send a letter to Tennessee senator, saying one of his recent campaign photos are 'emotionally distressing'.

 

[Baneat]

Sorry i am getting a tad angry i have been in a bad mood all day and i need sugar.

I'm not an American but I understand what that bit of paper is (This is the principle the country runs and is founded on, do not fuck with pl0x unless it's clearly wrong)

More people need to understand the importance of it, it's beautifully written from a logical viewpoint (Maybe in prose too) and serves to protect everyone. I want one in my country!

 

[Nickompoop]

Wait....what's that? Do you you hear it? That's the sound of the 1st Amendment crying out in pain.

Thank God I live in California.

 

[Ldude893]

Ironic and humiliating backfire in 5...4...

 

[Julianking93]

Yeah, about that.
Most anything I post can be considered offensive to someone
I love these laws that just become entirely subjective.
Fuck this state. Seriously, why the hell do I have to live here? >.>

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Fuck yeah! Next step for Tennesse: WORD ARRANGEMENTS!

I find this person's post to be offensive because it implies a slippery slope that mind as well be fact after this law, and I find facts to be offensive when they are depressing!

TO THE COURTS WITH YE, KNAVE!

 

[Macgyvercas]

A clear violation of freedom of information and freedom of speech. If I lived in TN, I'd be pissed enough to join Anon in the DDOS attacks that are sure to follow this law (however, I have no idea how to hack, and am too lazy to learn).

EDIT:

Yeah, about that.
Most anything I post can be considered offensive to someone
I love these laws that just become entirely subjective.
Fuck this state. Seriously, why the hell do I have to live here? >.>

If you want, Erie Pennsylvania is currently accepting nerds. You could move here, provided snow doesn't bother you (we get an average of 88.8 inches per year. Actually, we're the 13th snowiest city in the country).

 

[Fwee]

I will call this the "Whining Pussy" law.
At least someone might be able to get in something ridiculous, like "That McDonald's ad has a guy in it that looks like the guy that killed my mom!"

 

[fulano]

Fuck yeah! Next step for Tennesse: WORD ARRANGEMENTS!

I find this person's post to be offensive because it implies a slippery slope that mind as well be fact after this law, and I find facts to be offensive when they are depressing!

TO THE COURTS WITH YE, KNAVE!

Knave?! I demand blood be spilt. Now.