Tennessee Bans Posting 'Offensive' Images Online 372
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."
Someone got a picture of the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure it would offend most people on here. Ironic that a law text should be able to break itself.
I'm so confused (Score:2)
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 laug
Re:I'm so confused (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
That text isn't offensive in Tennessee. Try changing it to something like, "those white women just love that black cock".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Governor, I find your face offensive
Let the lawsuits begin (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
And what if someone is offended by seeing someone of very low/high weight?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's a picture of (random name), I'm offended (Score:2)
How about newspapers? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
The newspapers will probably not be prosecuted unless they attack the DA or other political figures.
Re:How about newspapers? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How about newspapers? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you.
Booo! (Score:2)
I'm getting so tired (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the zombie children. What would happen if their food left?
Re: (Score:3)
The only people that like to scream "Think of the Children" are pedophiles.
Real families and parents actually raise their child.
Re: (Score:2)
Real families and parents actually raise their child.
I've heard of such things, but only in fairy tales...
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Your abuse of the English language offends me. My lawyers will be contacting you.
Re:I'm getting so tired (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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 'o
Ok.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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".
TN lawmakers find THIS image totally innocent (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure some in the Tennessee leg finds this image [fsdn.com] NOT offensive in the least - they'd like to see more of it!
Who is liable? (Score:2)
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?
Offended? Thanks for your concern. (Score:2)
If I link someone to an offensive image (not that I would!)
Come on, don't be a pussy, do it ! [encyclopediadramatica.ch] (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 [ohinternet.com].
BTW both pages are in the first page of Google results for "offended".
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm praying that the courts will. :)
Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
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. :)
Free speech (Score:5, Funny)
Holiday Fun! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Holiday Fun! (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
whaaaat.... (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
It would mean the end of 4chan
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're just a mess of contradictions, anon.
Re: (Score:2)
It would mean the end of 4chan
Well that certainly puts a different light on things. Way to go Tennessee!
So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive. (Score:5, Insightful)
And a female wearing a Burka is offensive to others.
Do they think through these laws?
Re: (Score:2)
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!
His emal inbox is bound to be hilarious. (Score:2)
I'd love to take a quick spin through the images he gets send over the next few weeks.
Holy thought police ... (Score:2)
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.
Here's who decides (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
No more Sarah Palin? (Score:2, Funny)
Jesus H. Christ (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a sign of the times (Score:2)
If laws like this are getting passed, the end is near. The boneheads who put this through are generally running things.
So... (Score:2)
I find this offensive.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/yatta [albinoblacksheep.com]
Sue itchy guys, uh huh.
--
BMO
Thanks, i needed that info (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Communications Decency Act, Redux (Score:2)
Welcome to 1996, Tennessee!
I'm illegal in TN (Score:2)
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?
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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 [dumblaws.com]
Well, I guess all we can do is cut educational funding some more and wait till next year.
Miles
Goatse? (Score:2)
As a former Tennessean... (Score:2)
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 h
Kentucky declares War on Tennessee (Score:2)
or at least part of Kentucky [fark.com] does
subject (Score:2)
Dear Tennessee government:
8===D ~o
Politcal exemption? (Score:2)
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 abortio
Welcome to the UK (Score:2)
This is how they have it, its illegal to offend anyone for an reason.
Lets hear it for free speech.
Offensive is in the eye of the beholder (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
In before someone posts Goatse.
Too late...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm offended that you're offended. I'll see you in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we impeach them? (Score:3)
> 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?
Oaths (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And just the tip of the iceberg. Spooner's writings are amazing.
Tenn. Const. seems to lack freedom of speech (Score:2)
I'm no expert on Tennessee law, but looking at the Wikipedia article for the Tennessee State Constitution [wikipedia.org], 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: (Score:2)
-- Gitlow v. New York [google.com]
Incorporation Doctrine (Score:2)
Yah, thanks! Adrian Lopez's comment [slashdot.org] from moments before yours mentions that case indirectly by way of the Incorporation Doctrine [wikipedia.org]. Days like this I'm reminded of what I like best about Slashdot -- learning stuff. :)
Cheers,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [youtube.com]?
With apologies to Chandler Bing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Real Q: Const. covers feds; what of state laws? (Score:2)
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 Cons [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
See Incorporation Doctrine [wikipedia.org].
"Erleichda!" of a heavier sort (Score:2)
Cool, thank you! And here [wikipedia.org] is the kicker, with regard to TFA:
Guarantee of freedom of speech [wikipedia.org]
Which brings us back to the question of just what the bejeebus the knuckleheaded state legislators think they're doing...
Cheers,
Re: (Score:2)
Incorporation Doctrine (Score:2)
Thanks! Adrian Lopez's comment [slashdot.org] posted moments before yours mentions the Incorporation Doctrine [wikipedia.org] 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:...really? (Score:4, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
If two people get married in Tennessee and divorced in West Virginia, are they still brother and sister?