Tennessee law bans 'distressing images (transplants, dangerous, move)

[cry_havoc]

This is a disaster waiting to happen. What if I find the state flag of Tennessee distressing?

Tennessee law bans 'distressing images,' opens your Facebook inbox -- Engadget

[jchometeam]

That is an example of a law that will A) never be enforced and B) eventually be struck down as unconstitutionally vague.

[nashvols]

Originally Posted by jchometeam

That is an example of a law that will A) never be enforced and B) eventually be struck down as unconstitutionally vague.

Yep. I am not concerned at all about the law actually going into the books.

I'm more concerned that we have elected officials that keep concentrating on these pointless "social" issues that have little to do with actually protecting the interests of Tennessee residents.

[CMK10]

Idiots. I really mean that. Not as an insult but as an adjective. The entertainment subscription law is a boner as well. Pandering at it's best.

[JoeCartpath]

I need to remove my picture from my Facebook page before I go to jail!

[hiknapster]

It is the same darn legislator that is doing this. He wants national attention and he's getting it. You know what they say about wishing hard for some things. I'm not sure if you wants as much national scrutiny as he thinks. But in the meantime he is being very effective.

Personally, the guy ticks me off. I don't know how many times I've recently read posts on FB saying, to paraphrase, "Oh. It's that crazy Tennessee, again." It's one guy causing this mess and it is making us all look like idiots, natives and transplants alike.

sigh.

[Geneyus]

I think the idea of this law was to make it possible to prosecute those who post images intentionally insulting someone else. Like if I maliciously posted a picture of your face imposed on a naked fat lady's body on a social networking site or posted your nude photos after we broke up. It would cause you distress and embarassment. At the same time, I would think that would also fall under Harassment. I'm sure they are relying on the law enforcement investigators to use discretion on the law's usage. They aren't going to prosecute people for posting pictures of kittens after someone complains that they hate kittens.

With that said, I still think it should not have passed. I do think it will be struck down.

[nashvols]

Originally Posted by Geneyus

I think the idea of this law was to make it possible to prosecute those who post images intentionally insulting someone else. Like if I maliciously posted a picture of your face imposed on a naked fat lady's body on a social networking site or posted your nude photos after we broke up. It would cause you distress and embarassment. At the same time, I would think that would also fall under Harassment. I'm sure they are relying on the law enforcement investigators to use discretion on the law's usage. They aren't going to prosecute people for posting pictures of kittens after someone complains that they hate kittens.

With that said, I still think it should not have passed. I do think it will be struck down.

If that was the intent, they should have made it such. It's a very vague, broad law...not one that targets anything specifically. That's why people will call it dangerous, and that's why it will never pass scrutiny.

I don't really care what the intention was, though...why are we worrying about this? Why not work on fixing our damn state budget? Why not work on getting the economy back on track in Tennessee?

[skinem]

Originally Posted by jchometeam

That is an example of a law that will A) never be enforced and B) eventually be struck down as unconstitutionally vague.

I agree it will be nearly impossible to enforce and hope that it is struck down for more reasons than just being vague.

I hope it's struck down as being an unconstitutional infringement upon free speech. You can look hard throughout the Constitution and you won't find any protection against being insulted or having your feelings hurt.

I'm a straight-laced conservative kind of guy and hate some things you'll see on bumper stickers and tee shirts today, I find many offensive and rude, crude and (once were) socially unacceptable. But I don't want to get into the business of banning them as the next thing may be something I want to say, print, write, wear or display.

If this thing passes I guess I wouldn't be able to display that picture of Mohammed...

What a ridiculous law.

[CMK10]

Originally Posted by skinem

I agree it will be nearly impossible to enforce and hope that it is struck down for more reasons than just being vague.

I hope it's struck down as being an unconstitutional infringement upon free speech. You can look hard throughout the Constitution and you won't find any protection against being insulted or having your feelings hurt.

I'm a straight-laced conservative kind of guy and hate some things you'll see on bumper stickers and tee shirts today, I find many offensive and rude, crude and (once were) socially unacceptable. But I don't want to get into the business of banning them as the next thing may be something I want to say, print, write, wear or display.

If this thing passes I guess I wouldn't be able to display that picture of Mohammed...

What a ridiculous law.

Exactly. What speech need be protected than that which inflames and/or offends? It was inflammatory and offensive speech (treason) that formed our nation.