[M3Bahn]

Not a good ruling for forums.

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 reported 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. Tennessee law 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. Anyone 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.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...l-distress.ars

[Seminole]

Looks like Collins can't post anymore, lol.

[M3Bahn]

Originally Posted by Seminole

Looks like Collins can't post anymore, lol.

[AngelinIsRich08]

Eff that shit. What is this? Communism? I'd definitely move out of that state because of that. Living next to pussies would make me go off on someone. I would probably post "emotional" images all over the town to protest.

[M3Bahn]

Originally Posted by AngelinIsRich08

Eff that shit. What is this? Communism? I'd definitely move out of that state because of that. Living next to pussies would make me go off on someone. I would probably post "emotional" images all over the town to protest.

What if someone in Tenn. sees a post from out of state that causes them to get emo, does that fall under new law?

All Tenn. forum members should be banned from OT!

LOL

[1speedbike]

No offense to anyone on here, but lately I've been finding that states not on either coast, or around the south (Texas, AZ, etc) have very interesting interpretations of the constitution

[Blake]

breaking news: 4chan banned from TN internet

[DrockNJ]

Originally Posted by M3Bahn

What if someone in Tenn. sees a post from out of state that causes them to get emo, does that fall under new law?

All Tenn. forum members should be banned from OT!

LOL

i was thinking the same thing. what if someone from outside tenn. sends a picture to someone in the state? Do they get prosecuted under Tenn. law?

[M3Bahn]

Originally Posted by DrockNJ

i was thinking the same thing. what if someone from outside tenn. sends a picture to someone in the state? Do they get prosecuted under Tenn. law?

Easy way to deal with things in modern day american= everything is now illegal.

[NYCGP]

Wow... Lots of lawyers are going to move to Tenn to take the bar now... Will be enough work to last a lifetime.


I love how the governor is so ignorant that he just signs it and goes about his day. What a moron.

[M3Bahn]

Originally Posted by NYCGP

Wow... Lots of lawyers are going to move to Tenn to take the bar now... Will be enough work to last a lifetime.


I love how the governor is so ignorant that he just signs it and goes about his day. What a moron.

Your sig. is making me emodistressed!

[Crimson92]

well thats just stupid

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by NYCGP

Wow... Lots of lawyers are going to move to Tenn to take the bar now... Will be enough work to last a lifetime.


I love how the governor is so ignorant that he just signs it and goes about his day. What a moron.

I wouldnt call one of the richest people in the South ignorant, do some research on the Haslam Family

When I get out of Law School this will be my first objective, save the trolling

[JoosyJoos]

That'll be turned right over in the Supreme Court when someone challenges it--- that clearly challenges the first amendment.

[FStop7]

Easy solution: drop all connections to Tenn. Remove it from the net.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by FStop7

Easy solution: drop all connections to Tenn. Remove it from the net.

NO U

[M3Bahn]

Originally Posted by JoosyJoos

That'll be turned right over in the Supreme Court when someone challenges it--- that clearly challenges the first amendment.

Like they care.

[number335]

How do you prove emotional distress? Do you just have to curl up in the fetal position in the shower?

[Epacy2]

LOL @ the stupid shit some of these states have time for. Everybody is so frightened...

[AngelinIsRich08]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

I wouldnt call one of the richest people in the South ignorant, do some research on the Haslam Family

When I get out of Law School this will be my first objective, save the trolling

You're in law school? I want you to sue the shit out of this new law when you pass your bar exam.

[KGB7]

Originally Posted by number335

How do you prove emotional distress? Do you just have to curl up in the fetal position in the shower?

You also need a box of razor blades.

[M3Bahn]

So the law now applies not just to one-to-one communication, but to people’s posting images on their own Facebook pages, on their Web sites, and in other places if (1) they are acting “without legitimate purpose,” (2) they cause emotional distress, and (3) they intend to cause emotional distress or know or reasonably should know that their action will cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities. So,

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.”
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.”
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.”
And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.
Pretty clearly unconstitutional, it seems to me.

http://volokh.com/2011/06/06/crime-t...pose/#comments