Post A Picture That 'Causes Emotional Distress' And You Could Face Jailtime In Tennessee

from the outlawing-jerks? dept

Over the last few years, we've seen a troubling trend in various state laws which attempt to come up with ways to outlaw being a jerk online. Many of these are based on politicians and/or the public taking an emotional reaction to something bad happening after some does something online that angered someone else. Of course, while it would be nice if jerks would go away or jerky behavior would cease, that's just not realistic. The real issue is: how can it be constitutional to outlaw being a jerk? In many cases it raises serious First Amendment issues, among other things. The latest to jump into this game is the state of Tennessee, which apparently decided that just throwing people in jail for sharing music subscription passwords wasn't enough: now they want to put people in jail for "causing emotional distress" to others.

The specific law outlaws posting a photo online that causes "emotional distress" to someone and has no "legitimate purpose." While the law does state that there needs to be "malicious intent," it also includes a massive loophole, in that it says that you can still be liable if the person "reasonably should know" that the actions would "frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress." Eugene Volokh notes all sorts of problems with this:
  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.”
  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.”
  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.”
  4. And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.
Honestly, any time you have a law where the liability is based on how some other person feels, you've got a pretty serious problem. You can criminalize actions, but making someone a criminal because someone else feels "emotional distress" seems like a huge stretch.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 11:42am

    My Repost From That Thread

    I’m sure the hard-as-nails police departments around TN will feel very “emotionally distressed” when someone posts their dirty laundry to YouTube. What possible “legitimate purpose” could the filmmakers have for showing our fine boys in blue dispensing “justice” to an uppity citizen? They were obviously just trying to start something.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 4:26pm

      Re: My Repost From That Thread

      > I’m sure the hard-as-nails police departments around TN
      > will feel very “emotionally distressed” when someone posts
      > their dirty laundry to YouTube.

      Best way to get around any of this is email the video/image to someone in another state and have them post it to YouTube or whatever. Tennessee law doesn't bind the entire world. Only people in Tennessee.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      teaisstronger, Jun 10th, 2011 @ 7:46am

      Crushing Freedom of Press and Speech

      Everything and anything could be considered distressful. No state can do this, its un-constitutional and must be opposed by the Rule of Law or muskets and bayonets.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 11:46am

    Tennessee

    Isn't that the state where they banned science or education or some-such? I guess this is the result of outlawing education...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      PRMan, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:38pm

      Re: Tennessee

      Yes. They banned science by allowing for MORE DATA to be presented so that people could make up their minds about origins science without excluding experiments that show that Evolution has many problems.

      If banning data is your idea of "science" then maybe it should be banned...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2011 @ 10:36pm

      Re: Tennessee

      No, that's Texas, not tennessee.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Donnicton, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 11:47am

    Wait, so now you can jail people for causing you emotional distress, on top of already being able to sue them into a cardboard box for it?

    Look out Sony, I'm movin' to Tennessee!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 11:50am

    Did someone Goatse the Tennessee legislature?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Keroberos (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 11:55am

    And the mommyfication of U.S. society takes another step closer to the perfect ideal.

    Seriously 'causing emotional distress', WTF does that even mean. Just about anything can be defined as capable of causing emotional distress.

    Seriously, when did we start thinking it would be a good idea to start legislating free speech just because someone might get their feelings hurt.

    I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      DannyB (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:35pm

      Re:

      Not mommy.

      Big brother.

      Big brother is a comforting figure. Always on your side. Not your mom. Won't tell mom, so you can share secrets with big brother. Big brother always watches out for you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:57pm

        Re: Re:

        Where the hell was that big brother when I was growing up? My bi brother also told on me and beat me up when I did the same, of course he also beat me up for General Principle, I never liked that guy.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    SDAttorney (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 11:57am

    Hmmm...I wonder...

    Is 'testing the constitutionality' of the law considered a legitimate purpose?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Poster, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:18pm

      Re: Hmmm...I wonder...

      Depends. How much do you think Tennessee wants to pay to defend this law in court?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        SDAttorney (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 1:13pm

        Re: Re: Hmmm...I wonder...

        Isn't there a legitimate purpose for any action, otherwise one wouldn't act. What is an example of an illegitimate purpose? Is pissing someone off or causing emotional distress a legitimate purpose? May depend on what they've done to you, right? And if what they've done to you is a subjective standard, then who are we to determine whether the re-action was legitimate? Hmmm. I didn't mean to get philosophical but I think there's a point in there somewhere.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btr1701 (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 4:30pm

          Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...I wonder...

          > What is an example of an illegitimate purpose?

          Isn't it great that we now have our every action subject to review by some government drone who will determine it's legitimacy? *We* don't get to decide if our actions are legitimate or not. The government does.

          And this is supposedly the land of the free...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 11:58am

    This is actually a place where anonymous SHOULD get involved, and I have a hunch they will. Finding embarrassing and distressing pictures and FLOODING Tennessee with them is right up their alley.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    A.R.M. (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:13pm

    What a shame I don't live in TN.

    I'd use this new law to remove politicians using ad campaigns to promote themselves.

    Especially those which promise me the moon, but fail to deliver.

    I'd find that distressful instantly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:18pm

    Sheer Stupidity

    Redundant, dumb, and opressive. Here's why.

    Reading the bill they also have a condition that the vicitm has to have a "reasonable expectation" of viewing it. The only way you could argue that the vicitm has a reasonable expectation of view the materials is by sending it directly to the target. If somebody sends phone calls, letters, emails, Facebook posts to someone with the intent and result of genuine distress, isn't that just good old-fashioned harrassment, or if threatening direct violence, assault?

    Was this bill written by some guy who's mom showed his prom date naked baby pictures?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jason, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 1:58pm

      Re: Sheer Stupidity

      "If somebody sends phone calls, letters, emails, Facebook posts to someone with the intent and result of genuine distress, isn't that just good old-fashioned harrassment..?"

      No, because harrassment is also a civil matter. This is harrassment on the internet--WAY MORE INTENSER!! CRIME!!!
      THE CHILDREN!! WAAAAAHHHH!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ruby, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:19pm

    Jail?

    So, hypothetically speaking, if my lyin' cheatin' soon to be ex-hubby posts a pic on Facebook of him with his new chiquita (which he surely must realise would cause me emotional distress), I can get him sent to jail? This is a cool law!
    ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:21pm

    The Distinguished Gentleman from New York, Mr. Anthony Weiner probably should stay away from Tennessee, seeing that picture sure caused me some emotional distress.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Justin (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:26pm

    Jurisdiction

    How does the jurisdiction work on this? Do I have to be in the state when I post/send the picture? just pass through there once so they can get me? Come get me anyways just because I pissed somebody off, even though my state does not have a ridiculous law like this? sounds like this is going to be a law that they can't really enforce that well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Aaron deOliveira, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 3:10pm

      Re: Jurisdiction

      how will this affect sites that are intended to cause distress like thedirty.com

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Bergman, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 4:47pm

      Re: Jurisdiction

      Many states have what are called Long Arm Statutes. Put simply, if your actions violate a law and harm someone in that state, that state can extradite you from whatever state you are in, whether what you did is a crime in your home state or not.

      So yes, Tennessee has just outlawed the first amendment nationally.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:28pm

    This law causes me emotional distress.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    HothMonster, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:30pm

    IANAL | Being as I am not a citizen of Tennessee but am a US citizen if I posted a bunch of photoshops of the Tennessee supreme court having rabid sex with each other and a selection of animals with the "illegitimate" purpose of distressing them emotionally could I be charged? I mean since they are viewing my actions in Tennessee am I therefore "in" Tennessee breaking the law? Or would I have to physically go to Tennessee and upload the pictures from there for it to effect me?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:32pm

    To re-purpose an old saw, you can randomly point to a pic of any item in a Sears catalog and someone, somewhere, will be offended by it. What an utterly ridiculous law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ArkieGuy (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:38pm

    This law distresses me

    Since the new law distresses me and it's posted, does that mean that all of the TN legislators need to be jailed or just the poor sob that had to publish it? :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      cara cohen, Jun 10th, 2011 @ 3:45am

      Re: This law distresses me

      Quick take a picute. I do not think mental images count. Wisconson's Gov. has a High School Degree. Did this legislator get their degree at U of Appelatia? This law will be quashed as soon as it is tried.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:48pm

    /waits for everyone and their brother to post goatse...

    Because that's emotionally distressing. And anally distressing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Beta (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:50pm

    a flaw in the rules

    Since this is criminal law, not civil, people will get in trouble about it only if the DA wants them to, so it is basically impossible for ordinary citizens to force the issue. It is blatantly unconstitutional, so we can hope that no one will ever actually go to jail for breaking it, but it remains a threat until it is declared unconstitutional.

    And here's the kicker: there is no penalty for lawmakers who enact this kind of trash. Well, unless the voters wake up enough to... No, no penalty.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Bergman, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 5:00pm

      Re: a flaw in the rules

      I've long believed that using official authority to knowingly and willfully subvert or violate the constitution should be prosecuted as treason. Being poorly educated might save you from your first offense, but you'd likely get a court-ordered education on the constitution.

      As a bonus, it would tend to keep lawyers out of government, since it would make it really hazardous for them, as they would be incapable of pleading ignorance as a defense without committing perjury.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:50pm

    Shouldn't be too long, at the rate this country is going before they open up Gulags....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Keroberos (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:59pm

    On Further Reflecion...

    I thought of a something they could add to this law that would make me a whole-hearted supporter of it.

    Anyone wanting to press charges under this law would be mandated to have sight, hearing, speech, and their fingers and toes surgically removed; or to sign a waiver never to make a complaint using this law ever again.

    Win-win for all sides, those signing the waiver will have to learn how to just suck it up and deal like the rest of us; and those accepting surgical alteration will no longer be able to communicate in any meaningful manner so will no longer have to worry about their delicate feelings hurt ever again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Pickle Monger (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 12:59pm

    It's bad enough that we have the copyright vs free speach issue but now we tack on the legitimate perposes vs free speach? And who is going to decide on that with what standard?

    P.S. Note to self: remind Aural Turpitude not to play his song about violating Baby Jesus when in Tennessee.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    -=rjh=-, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

    Could happen to almost anyone

    One of the things I've noticed with the growth of privately run fora replacing the more robust usenet groups, is willingness to shut down contentious issues, and this gives another tool (or at least, the threat of using it) that furthers this trend.

    Look at what happened to the discussion around this photo, which polarised opinion between those who found it offensive and those who did not:

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=36738721

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 1:05pm

    Several people cause me emotional distress. If I lived in Tennessee, the prison population would skyrocket.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 1:07pm

    1) Find All pictures posted online by everyone that had anything to do with the creation of this law.
    2) Be Disturbed by said images & file a complaint.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    V, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 1:07pm

    The law...

    This law causes me emotional distress. If they post a photo of the law... in the form of a PDF... I'm taking the entire government to court!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NullOp, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 1:13pm

    America v2.0

    In America v2.0 people are taught they are weak and they should always be "sensitive." ANYTHING that can be REMOTELY construed to be negative or, better yet, racial is horrific and we must be offended immediately. In America v2.0, people are sheep!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 1:17pm

    People Eating Tasty Animals

    So I'm guessing that this law is going to make the members of PETA criminals for their advertisements.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 1:22pm

    This is what happens when politicians finally start being able to work the Internet...and then see how many people online are calling them fucktards.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 1:26pm

    What about

    news sites? CNN posts plenty of pictures online that can cause emotional distress. In fact any news site posts pictures that can cause emotional distress. And if it's based on how a person feels, then we can complain about any picture posted.

    And how will the state of Tenn be able to prosecute people who don't even live in that state, much less in the u.s.?

    Sometimes I can't figure out if the stupidest politicians are in the state legislatures or the federal government. Both seem to be complete idiots.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    PlagueSD, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 1:30pm

    Sweet!!! No more hungry children or abandoned animals commercials!! Oh, and I think the News will have to change their format. No more showing bombed areas with injured/mained people walking around. Away with shock TV. We're too weak and sensitive to see such things.


    /sarcasm...or is it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    trish, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 1:42pm

    jail state

    too many empty cells in tennessee? too much taxpayer money floating around the coffers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 2:07pm

    The Information Age meets The Dark Ages.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Glaze (profile), Jun 7th, 2011 @ 2:26pm

    Hey TN

    Maybe you should stop screwing your parents and your kin and get your head out of your ass and stop passing stupid laws...

    I hope that caused emotional distress to somebodies mothersister. Can I go to jail for that? Oh wait i don't live in TN... so i don't think so... last time i checked we still had some first ammendment rights in MN...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Inforwars, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 2:42pm

    Sweet

    Now maybe we can get our .GOV for all the emotional distress they have put me under with all their lies!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 2:57pm

    techdirt logo makes me emotional distress

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    That Anonymous Coward, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 4:34pm

    While Goatse and 1 Guy 1 Jar would seem to be the right response, it is only going to convince them they are right.

    When you haul the religious minded people into court for daring to post anti-abortion pictures, they will end up very confused. Because the standard they are using is not what the "average" person would find distressing, but only those who share the same ideals would find distressing.

    This is one of those laws quickly passed to create warm fuzzy feelings in a certain demographic. We won't grab YOUR balls when you want to fly. We won't tap YOUR phones without a warrant. It is short sighted and a waste of energy to work yourself into a lather. I would suggest instead it is much better to calmly pick an easy target and demand the law be enforced.

    Humane society, Homeless Children, "Church" Groups, The Red Cross, All Media outlets, and have yourself a field day as they try to explain how that is not how it is supposed to work, enjoy watching them get the pimp slap to the back of the head they seem to desperately need.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    davey, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 5:42pm

    Seeing Sarah Palin's picture

    makes me puke. Where do I collect?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Carmen Hawes, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 7:28pm

    Laws like this are passed to support the corruption

    Laws like this are passed in Tennessee to support the corruption in the police departments and judicial system. Google "corruption in Tennessee" and start reading, and reading, and reading, and reading.... the corruption is rampant! My husband and I moved here from California several years ago and we are trying to decide on whether to stay and protest the corruption or get the heck out of here. Unless the locals start standing up for themselves, I think I would prefer to do the latter. How do you help people who cannot or will not help themselves? The corruption in the health care community has caused me so much in the way of my health and peace of mind. I am in my 50's and am scared to death of spending my retirement years here. A lot of people die here early deaths because of the corruption. The police and the courts are even worse. You'll see! Just remember to google "corruption in Tennessee" and start reading. Maybe some of you outside this state can make some phone calls to put pressure on the FBI or someone to come in here and help us. Just read the stories, and do what you can. As far as this law, well they have a reason for passing this law. After you read the stories about the corruption, you will understand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Carmen Hawes, Jun 7th, 2011 @ 7:35pm

    Laws like this are passed to support the corruption

    Laws like this are passed in Tennessee to support the corruption in the police departments and judicial system. Google "corruption in Tennessee" and start reading, and reading, and reading, and reading.... the corruption is rampant! My husband and I moved here from California several years ago and we are trying to decide on whether to stay and protest the corruption or get the heck out of here. Unless the locals start standing up for themselves, I think I would prefer to do the latter. How do you help people who cannot or will not help themselves? The corruption in the health care community has caused me so much in the way of my health and peace of mind. I am in my 50's and am scared to death of spending my retirement years here. A lot of people die here early deaths because of the corruption. The police and the courts are even worse. You'll see! Just remember to google "corruption in Tennessee" and start reading. Maybe some of you outside this state can make some phone calls to put pressure on the FBI or someone to come in here and help us. Just read the stories, and do what you can. As far as this law, well they have a reason for passing this law. After you read the stories about the corruption, you will understand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2011 @ 1:28am

    Several agencies, including the FBI, US Marshals, and several state and county police departments, post pictures of their officials with guns. Given some of the shiznit that they've done, would it be that surprising to see the friends and family of shooting victims go after officials in Tennessee using this law?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    monkyyy, Jun 8th, 2011 @ 5:03pm

    this law has caused me distress
    i read about it on a computer screen
    and a computer screen shows images
    meaning this law has posted a image online that caused me distress
    im sueing

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Daniel, Jun 8th, 2011 @ 6:16pm

    Tennessee, home of the stupid...

    How is it even possible that you idiots are worried about Omaba turning the US into a 'socialist state' when you are doing your best to turn it into a fascist dictatorship all by yourself?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ShakinSheik, Jun 9th, 2011 @ 4:47am

    Legitimacy

    How about laws with a "Legitimate Purpose"

    What the hell are those boneheads in Nashville trying to prove?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Curious, Jun 9th, 2011 @ 6:45am

    Tennessee law article

    Is this article about a bill or a law that passed? "Post A Picture That 'Causes Emotional Distress' And You Could Face Jailtime In Tennessee".

    I live in Tennessee and watch the legislature. This one got by me if it passed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Roelof, Jun 9th, 2011 @ 8:12am

    UN regulation forbids censorship internet.

    Recently the UN decided open internet is a human right. What Tennessee is doing, is in conflict with UN resolution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Paul, Jun 9th, 2011 @ 9:58am

    Idiots in Tennessee

    Are you kidding me? Let's try and recall a little something we have called the FIRST AMENDMENT!

    So what happens if a woman who can't have children goes online and starts seeing lots of pictures of children that have been posted on their mom or dad's facebook page, for grandma to see? I think that will be "emotionally distressing!"

    LAWMAKERS = CONTROL FREAKS = IDIOTS!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tennessean, Jun 9th, 2011 @ 11:38am

    Honest Tennessean

    As a freedom loving Tennessean, I think it's safe to say that my personal opinion of this is that the author and supporters of this should be shot in the head.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    not here, Jun 9th, 2011 @ 3:27pm

    online pics

    Did i read this right and it only applies to online pics. What about printed flyers? Lets wallpaper the Capitol.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    t, Jun 9th, 2011 @ 6:54pm

    1st amendment protects ofensive speech

    kiss my ass tennissee

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    t, Jun 9th, 2011 @ 6:56pm

    this law is causing me emotional distress

    Im gonna sue tennissee

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    :), Jun 9th, 2011 @ 9:48pm

    Looks like Tennessee got Rick Rolled one too many times.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    :), Jun 9th, 2011 @ 9:48pm

    Looks like Tennessee got Rick Rolled one too many times.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jake, Jun 10th, 2011 @ 1:44am

    WTF

    THIS IS A BULLSHIT LAW

    Wouldnt you agree that a law shouldnt be something based on opinion? How would you know your boundaries? This is the stupidest law I think I've come accross anx it just proves the stupidity and lack of common sense these political figures who approved it have.

    Im going to go and post a big hairy veiny dick on some TN website now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    cara cohen, Jun 10th, 2011 @ 3:38am

    Article is Idiotic

    This is an idiotic article written by someone absolutely unfamiliar with Constituional law. It has not been tried yet and if it is will be appealed out in a second. For instance as we all should know US Sup. Ct. has ruled Falwell v. Hustler hyperbole is an absolue excuse. You may make a joke.

    Private persons are protected but, quasi private are NOT. As soon as your victim inserts himself by suing and it goes in the paper as do the public moving papers so is the person now a public person. Public persons are not protected from any damage.

    Idiotic laws are slipped in all the time and are quashed. The writer of the article is an idiot who does not understand basic 1st Ammendment rights. Cough. McPherson. End of trial. Once things go through US Sup. Ct. there is no going back. Abortion will NEVER be reversed. Bush knew this while campagning. It is sad that basic law is not understood by the common American who at least you would think woulld be aware of common law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sladge, Jun 10th, 2011 @ 4:00am

    this law causes-me distress

    If this law causes-me distress... I´ll be using it

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    zwig, Jun 10th, 2011 @ 7:09am

    What about Christ on the Cross?

    What about a picture of a bloody, beaten Chhrist on the Cross?

    Someone will be offended and then someone will go to jail.

    Defend your rights and privacy:
    Vote Ron Paul.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Brad Ward, Jun 10th, 2011 @ 10:51am

    Violation of Rule of Law

    I'm a citizen of TN and this is in violation of Article 1, Section 19 of the state constitution! We have freedom of press and speech which includes disturbing images.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jason, Jun 10th, 2011 @ 1:16pm

    What about green olives?

    I once saw a talk show where they were dealing with phobias. This lady came on who was violently afraid of green olives. She would scream and run out of the room if she saw one! That's pretty clearly emotional distress, but are we all going to have to start putting censor bars over our pickle jars?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 10th, 2011 @ 10:31pm

    I hate living in this state. Some time ago they finally changed a law to where you COULD take guns with you to bars. Why in the hell would you want to mix up alcohol and guns? To lower our population?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Andrew, Jun 11th, 2011 @ 12:23am

    This is A big problem... an this is hindering my freedom

    And here's why.. number one i live in TN. and am appalled that my state, where i lived all my life, think they have the right to restrict me from being able to say and do as i please, not only hav they made it a law for me to pay money to things that shouldn't be required for me to pay, but now they are saying that i cant do something on a public domain, if i post a picture to facebook, there's something on there that if it offends someone then they can mark it as spam, and facebook will remove it. Here's the solution, america needs to be reformed. and not according to legislature, but to what the people want... Neither america nor TN will restrict my freedoms. I AM FREE...BUT I, YET STILL, HAVE TO PAY THE TAXES THAT PAY THOSE FOOLS IN OFFICE. I WANT THEM TO PUT ME IN JAIL. CAUSE AMAZINGLY ENOUGH I AND ANYONE ELSE CAN TAKE THIS TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE INTERNET CANNOT BE CONTROLLED, IT WASNT CREATED BY THEM, ITS A PUBLIC DOMAIN. ANYTHING THAT I POST HAS NO WAY OF A RIGHT TO PLACE ME OR ANYONE ELSE IN JAIL. ITS AN IDIOTIC LAW, pretty soon its going to be OH youre walking down the street after curfew, youre going to jail. what a bunch of pricks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Andrew, Jun 11th, 2011 @ 12:25am

    This is A big problem... an this is hindering my freedom

    And here's why.. number one i live in TN. and am appalled that my state, where i lived all my life, think they have the right to restrict me from being able to say and do as i please, not only hav they made it a law for me to pay money to things that shouldn't be required for me to pay, but now they are saying that i cant do something on a public domain, if i post a picture to facebook, there's something on there that if it offends someone then they can mark it as spam, and facebook will remove it. Here's the solution, america needs to be reformed. and not according to legislature, but to what the people want... Neither america nor TN will restrict my freedoms. I AM FREE...BUT I, YET STILL, HAVE TO PAY THE TAXES THAT PAY THOSE FOOLS IN OFFICE. I WANT THEM TO PUT ME IN JAIL. CAUSE AMAZINGLY ENOUGH I AND ANYONE ELSE CAN TAKE THIS TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE INTERNET CANNOT BE CONTROLLED, IT WASNT CREATED BY THEM, ITS A PUBLIC DOMAIN. ANYTHING THAT I POST HAS NO WAY OF A RIGHT TO PLACE ME OR ANYONE ELSE IN JAIL. ITS AN IDIOTIC LAW, pretty soon its going to be OH youre walking down the street after curfew, youre going to jail. what a bunch of pricks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sam West, Jun 11th, 2011 @ 1:58pm

    TN

    This is why we chose not to settle in TN. Nut cases.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    joe, Jun 12th, 2011 @ 5:15am

    most horribly worded law ever??

    lots of things cause emotional distress to lots of people

    when i was 20 and moved in with my 19 year old girlfriend, her parents were BEYOND emotionally distressed - should i go to jail because i upset them?

    if i draw a cartoon of muhammed wearing a bomb turban...
    if i post a photoshopped picture of jesus at a gay parade dressed up like an s & m dude...
    if i post a picture of a homophobe photoshopped to be wearing an evening gown and makeup...

    how is it that politicians can be so simple minded as to not imagine that these things should not be illegal??? idiots

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mikado, Jun 14th, 2011 @ 6:38pm

    also intimidate nice one (writen in by a TOTAL IDIOT) (a dark scenario) A PEDOFILE SEES OWN PICtURE UP ON SEX OFFENDER REGISTER finds it intimidat'ing to him and it gets taken down THEN WHAT

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    titus, Jun 15th, 2011 @ 3:19pm

    Alright,

    I find this emotionally distressing. I think I'm going to turn in the blogger who posted this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Distressed, Jun 18th, 2011 @ 9:53am

    Tennessee Web Sites

    I'm sure with all of the government websites in Tennessee, there will be plenty that have posted a picture that causes me distress... I'm so pleased to know that I, and all of my fellow internet users (yes, Tennessee - there are more than 20 of us) can now sue the state and make them pay for harming me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    seller, Jun 19th, 2011 @ 7:28pm

    hhhhhhhhhh

    i should go live there but really there a lot of photos that make you sad on the internet

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Brandt Hardin, Jul 25th, 2011 @ 6:47pm

    Potentially Offensive...

    You can see my response to this new law as a Tennessee artist on my artist's blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/07/potentially-offensive-portrait-governor.html with my portrait of our Governor Bill Haslam and his ravishing wife.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anon, Apr 20th, 2012 @ 10:20am

    Pretty useful law imho

    As someone was stalked by a dangerous person, I am thankful for this law. It scares me to think that I'm a just google search away from being rediscovered by my stalker. I am glad I have some legal authority to insist that my picture stays of the 'net. I hope it never comes to it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This