The Tennessee legislature has just done an interesting thing, philosophically speaking: 

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 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.

Now, of course, this unconstitutional law is offensive. Surely the Tennessee legislature should have known that seeing an image of this law would offend me. I am, as could easily be predicted, emotionally distressed by it.

Does that mean it was illegal for them to transmit the news of their new legislative achievement? Does that create a paradox, in a kind of intriguing, all-Cretans-are-liars kind of way? 

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Robert E. Lee
Joined
Jun '10
Robert E. Lee

I'm speechless (by Tennessee law) that these supposedly grown men and women are allowed to wander the streets alone, much less pass laws the rest of us must live by on pain of jail or fine.

Bruce Hendricksen
Joined
Jun '10
Bruce Hendricksen

This sounds like something from the Great White North. And to think that the the assembly and executive are both Republican. Very disappointing. I can't imagine what they were thinking.

Dan
Joined
Apr '11
Dan IV

Oh boy. You've got to be kidding me.  This is crazy.  And the Governor is a Republican, and the Assembly is split R/D 65/34 and 20/13.  What were they thinking?

I assume this will create yet another class of 'victims', the law being so vague.

Edited on Jun 12, 2011 at 5:39am
Paul A. Rahe

One more indication that Republicans tend to be poorly educated in this country's first principles. Oops! I should not have said that. It might cause emotional distress to some Republican. This crime is in the eyes of the beholder.


Joined
Jun '11
WRC

Sounds like Buzz has infiltrated Tennessee. But why worry? After all, It Can't Happen Here.

Sounds like the legislature needs to have a chat with Mr. Sinclair Lewis.  

Jaydee_007
Joined
Jul '10
Jaydee_007

 As a 3D artist and a Member of Renderosity I have to ask, do you have to live in Tennessee in order to violate this law, or do you simply have to post something that is Frightening or Distressing and someone in Tennessee looks at it?

One of the categories that we often create images for is "Horror."  If I create an image specifically to frighten under the category of Horror am I now guilty of of a crime?

I made this image at Halloween of 2010 and posted it before the law went into effect, am I protected by X-Post-Facto or will I be guilty because I did not remove it after the law went into effect?

They can even prove that my intent was to Frighten because I listed the image as Horror.  And as such, can a person living in Tennessee now start surfing the web for images that will Frighten them or specifically cause them emotional distress (like hunting trophies causing PETA members distress) and start filing suit?

This is the kind of nonsense that Republicans keep buying into why the Tea Party doesn't trust them. 

Capt. Aubrey
Joined
Sep '10
Capt. Aubrey

This morning I had the misfortune to watch a few seconds of the "Today" show by accident. They were talking in great detail about this disgusting murder in Florida by a mother of her daughter. How is this not pornography? In any event I took the action that any distressed person should be allowed to take. I turned the bloody television off. Do you suppose the legislators of Tennessee are unaware of this solution? 

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller
Bruce Hendricksen: This sounds like something from the Great White North. And to think that the the assembly and executive are both Republican. 

That was my first thought as well. Perhaps the law will be quickly repealed in response to voter backlash.

Let's hope the first people accused of this ridiculous crime respond in the manner of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn.


Joined
Jun '11
michael kelley

“Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must, by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come.”

 

    Walter Lippmann. An Inquiry into the Principles of the Good Society  

Crow's Nest
Joined
Mar '11
Crow's Nest

There has long been a tension within the modern conservative movement between those who are more inclined to classically liberal views and those more inclined to socially conservative views on the role of government in regulating popular culture. Even social conservatives are divided on this issue. 

Many Tea Partiers are both economic and social conservatives. They may or may not believe that this law is a good idea. But it is not as if there are clear battlelines on which the Republican party stands on one side and the "Tea Party" on the other on this subject.

I am inclined to the classically liberal position and find this law troubling. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of social conservatives who wouldn't see it as good common sense to keep violence, sex, or offensive language off the public airwaves. You do them a disservice if you treat them dismissively.

X-Post Facto? Are they a competitor of Fed-Ex? Paging Emily Litella. 

Bruce Hendricksen
Joined
Jun '10
Bruce Hendricksen

michael kelley: “Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must, by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come.”

    Walter Lippmann. An Inquiry into the Principles of the Good Society   · Jun 12 at 6:36am

Yes, but Republicans?  Heaven help us!

Grendel
Joined
Apr '11
grendel

The Catch-22 aspect reminds me of an anti-obscenity law some years back that, to avoid being "unconstitutionally vague", described explicitly and vividly the content to be proscribed.  The NYT found the text of the law unfit to print, and it probably was in violation of itself. 

Tennessee's non-offensiveness standard has been in effect in corporate and academic America for years.


Joined
Jun '11
michael kelley

Bruce Hendricksen

michael kelley: “Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must, by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come.”

    Walter Lippmann. An Inquiry into the Principles of the Good Society   · Jun 12 at 6:36am

Yes, but Republicans?  Heaven help us! · Jun 12 at 6:41am

I Know!!!!!  Republicans!!!!!! Sheeeeeeeeeeesh!

Sometimes, Bruce, you have to step back, blink and look how far we've gone back down the road to serfdom.  Amazing.

However, I fully expect that America regains its footing over these generations.  I am very optimistic in that regard (afraid but optimistic).  We can pull this off.

Basil Fawlty
Joined
Mar '11
Basil Fawlty

This is an update of what appears to be an existing "anti-stalking" law.   Any thoughts on the constitutionality of the original statute?

David Holtkamp
Joined
Dec '10
David Holtkamp

This is embarrassing for Republicans. Shame on them.

Jaydee_007
Joined
Jul '10
Jaydee_007

Crow's Nest:

X-Post Facto? Are they a competitor of Fed-Ex? Paging Emily Litella. 

Didn't think this needed explaination...

X-Post-Facto - After the Fact.

You cannot pass a law on Thursday and arrest someone for violating it on Wednesday, since the newly prohibited Action was not against the law on Wednesday.


Joined
Feb '11
david foster

"Cretan" comes to mind not only with regard to the paradox, but with regard to another meaning of the word...

Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Joined
Aug '10
Midget Faded Rattlesnake

What the kazoo? I worked in Tennessee for a while, and thought I had respect for the state. Now they pull this?! Oy. Vey.

Kennedy Smith
Joined
May '10
Kennedy Smith

 Dammit, this is distracting from the appalling behavior of the South Carolina GOP establishment's disgraceful conduct toward Nikki Haley.  And the Alabama guy's attempt to require licensing standards for interior decorators.  Galling to not have stupider people to point at.

On the plus side, this will be struck down at the first attempt at enforcement, probably pro bono.  And we don't have an income tax, so there's that.

Grendel
Joined
Apr '11
grendel

Jaydee_007

Crow's Nest:

X-Post Facto? Are they a competitor of Fed-Ex? Paging Emily Litella. 

Didn't think this needed explaination...

X-Post-Facto - After the Fact.

<grump>"X-Post-Facto"?!?!  Is this Latin invading Leet?  Or  vice versa? Why don't you write ex post facto like decent folk and lawyers?
</grump>


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In