• Tenn. law bans Images that Cause "Emotional Distress"
    70 replies, posted
[URL]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/tenn-law-bans-posting-images-that-cause-emotional-distress.ars[/URL] [quote] A new Tennessee law makes it a crime to "transmit or display an image" online that is likely to "frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress" to someone who sees it. Violations can get you almost a year in jail time or up to $2500 in fines. The Tennessee legislature has been busy updating its laws for the Internet age, and not always for the better. Last week we [URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/stealing-entertainment-services-now-a-crime-in-tennessee.ars"]reported[/URL] on a bill that updated Tennessee's theft-of-service laws to include "subscription entertainment services" like Netflix. The ban on distressing images, which was signed by Gov. Bill Haslam last week, is also an update to existing law. [URL="http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/1203d/12a88/12af8/12b2d?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_39-17-308"]Tennessee law[/URL] already made it a crime to make phone calls, send emails, or otherwise communicate directly with someone in a manner the sender "reasonably should know" would "cause emotional distress" to the recipient. If the communciation lacked a "legitimate purpose," the sender faced jail time. The new legislation adds images to the list of communications that can trigger criminal liability. But for image postings, the "emotionally distressed" individual need not be the intended recipient. [I]Anyone[/I] who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court decides you "should have known" that an image you posted would be upsetting to someone who sees it, you could face months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines. If you think that sounds unconstitutional, you're not alone. In a blog post, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh [URL="http://volokh.com/2011/06/06/crime-to-post-images-that-cause-emotional-distress-without-legitimate-purpose/"]points out[/URL] just how broad the legislation is. The law doesn't require that the picture be of the "victim," nor would the government need to prove that you intended the image to be distressing. 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." Another provision of the legislation governs law enforcement access to the contents of communications on social networking sites. The government can get access to "images or communications" posted to a social networking site by offering "specific and articulable facts," suggesting that the information sought is "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." This section, too, faces constitutional problems. Julian Sanchez, a privacy scholar at the Cato Institute, tells Ars that "this is a lower standard than the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act requires" for unread communications. More importantly, because Tennessee is in the Sixth Circuit, it is bound by that court's [URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/appeals-court-warrant-required-before-feds-can-read-e-mail-mail.ars"]Warshak decision,[/URL] which held that the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a full search warrant in order to access e-mail communications. "That case dealt with e-mail," Sanchez said, "but there's no good reason to think a private message on a social network site is any different." Rep. Charles Curtiss, the lead sponsor of the legislation, did not respond to our request for comment.[/quote] can't wait for this thread to be filled with tubgirl and goatse
This thread gave me emotional distress. I'll see you in court.
Guess whoever came up with that law wanted the pictures of them from their teenage years illegal.
:nws: :nms: [url]http://i.imgur.com/ihxlf.jpg[/url] COME AT ME, TENNESSEE
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;30343297]:nws: :nms: [url]http://i.imgur.com/ihxlf.jpg[/url] COME AT ME, TENNESSEE[/QUOTE] i'll see you in court
Op's avatar causes me emotional distress
Ok I'll stoop to your level Tenessee. I ban all laws that can cause emotional distress.
This is a worthless subjective law. What if it's something homosexual. They could get fined for it by some bigoted judge.
What about videos, are videos exempt from this law?
[QUOTE=Untouch;30343433]What about videos, are videos exempt from this law?[/QUOTE] it seems like this only applies to stationary pictures, post moving pictures till your hearts content
I've said it many a' times before in previous threads but I'll say it again. What the FUCK is with my state. Goddamnit.
What about ASCII pictures, can I post an ASCII picture of an ass?
RIP Goatman. I think he and his mates have done well for themselves to be honest, not much shocks the average internet user these days. [editline]9th June 2011[/editline] sets you up for life [editline]9th June 2011[/editline] goatse helped me overcome the shock of the sudden death of my auntie [editline]9th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Untouch;30343489]What about ASCII pictures, can I post an ASCII picture of an ass?[/QUOTE] i'd say yes as a non-nerd probably would just see a bunch of squiggles. you're welcome. [editline]9th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;30343297]:nws: :nms: [url]http://i.imgur.com/ihxlf.jpg[/url] COME AT ME, TENNESSEE[/QUOTE] now that is an image that has been truly missed
[QUOTE=Cuntsman;30343361]Op's avatar causes me emotional distress[/QUOTE] Your avatar caused me HOWDIDLY DOODLY OKLY DOKLIE
This needs to get struck down.
A picture of your mom causes me emotional distress. I'll see you in court.
I herby charge the defendant on three counts of maliciously distributing hello.jpg, 5 counts possession of hello.jpg [editline]9th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;30343567]A picture of your mom causes me emotional distress. I'll see you in court.[/QUOTE] yeah bad memories, because she left you when you showed her your tiny penis for the first time
This image will cause emotional distress. [img]http://www.flagguys.com/img/confederatenavyjack.gif[/img]
So if I link someone in Tennessee to goatse I get a year in prison?
This law causes me emotional distress. [B]WHAT NOW?[/B]
[QUOTE=JustGman;30343670]So if I link someone in Tennessee to goatse I get a year in prison?[/QUOTE] surely it'd be up to them to prove that it did distress them, how is this law even workable?
But there isn't a single fucking image of anything that doesn't cause emotional distress/offends SOMEONE
Eh, I wouldn't mind this but there are some things that shouldn't be censored. Like on 9/11 they broadcasted a lot of graphic images, like the jumpers. Things like that need to live forever.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQbUe-auuTI&feature=related[/media] Meanwhile in Tennessee
I don't like your image about (X image about thing Y thing person disagrees with or hates) so I am going to sue you! It caused me emotional distress!
[img]http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/107/4/2/Dead_Puppies_by_sbkMulletMan.jpg[/img] Found this googling dead puppies
[QUOTE=AnalDestroyer;30343827][img]http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/107/4/2/Dead_Puppies_by_sbkMulletMan.jpg[/img] Found this googling dead puppies[/QUOTE] i dont understand
What the fuck
As stupid as this law is, at least I don't really disagree with it. It'd be nice if people stopped posting shock images. Edit: I do think it's stupid to even attempt to make it illegal. That doesn't mean I don't think it'd be nice if it somehow worked, even though it is not going to and never will.
This is law is too fucking subjective to be of any use.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.