Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
If you put political correctness, victimology, unconstitutionality and a liberal in a blender, you'd end up with Tennessee's new criminal law (CRIMINAL!) against posting "offensive pictures" on the Internet.
Holy vague statute, Batman! Had this law been passed when I wrote this post on vague laws, I would have skipped my own narrative and just pasted in the text of the law.
Speaking of, below is the text of the law as excised by Prof. Eugene Volokh, and I promise if you read it through, you will be astonished that a legislature and Governor who know there is a 1st Amendment would actually write this:
(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally:
(4) Communicates with another person or transmits or displays an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim by [by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication] without legitimate purpose:
(A) (i) With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or
(ii) In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and
(B) As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.
Each line is fraught with constitutional poison, but none more vague than this: You are guilty if you "should have known" the other person would be offended by your posted picture.
Talk about a subjective standard. Don't look now but I think Tennessee just outlawed Muhammad Cartoons.
The left has for years been looking for a "right not to be offended" and a way to lock up conservatives for disagreeing with them, and in Tennessee, even if that wasn't the intended result, they can thank serendipity because they may now have both.
So tell me Ricochet, what images do you think the left will claim they should jail you for?
Actually, I might use this law myself. Last night, on Independence weekend, Rob Long served Ann Coulter fancy French food instead of a bowl of Freedom Fries and posted this photo on the Internet:
J'accuse! I'm completely offended, and I'm certain Rob "reasonably should have known" my patriotic American sensibilities would be offended. Stay clear of Tennessee, Rob - I've issued a warrant for your arrest.
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
What's next? Life in prison for snarking?
Man, I hope it's concurrent rather than consecutive.
Edited on Jul 1, 2011 at 10:49pmMay '10
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
I am frightened, intimidated, and emotionally distressed by this law. Lock 'em all up.
May '10
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
Wasn't there some case many years ago in which a judge, when asked to define obscenity, answered "I'll know it when I see it"?
I'm not implying this law is no big deal. But isn't it par for the course these days?
Jan '11
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
How could that not be the intended result?
Aug '10
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
Many of the Ricochet members' avatars are pictures of themselves... I hope the Code prohibits speculation on which ones should be classified as frightening or distressful.
Nov '10
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
Marlo Thomas has been sending me photos of children stricken with cancer at St. Jude's Childrens Hospital in Memphis for years, knowing it is causing me emotional distress that has lead to my sending her large sums of money in the hope she will stop. I think my phone call to the Tennessee Attorney General's Office on Monday will put an end her strong-arm tactics. "Legitimate purpose"--Hah!
Jan '11
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
Look - if you want me to change my profile pic just let me know directly
Jul '10
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
The problem with this nonsense is it's deadly serious nonsense.
Government was never intended to be a weapon to be used by one person against another, yet that is what this liberal inclusiveness/non-offensiveness idiocy has become.
It started in California when they wanted to help the Animal Rights fanatics with their law outlawing any Depiction of animal cruelty. Of course when you read the wording of the law it made owning a copy of The Godfather a Felony. Fortunatly SCOTUS threw it into the trash can.
But it hasn't stopped there. First there was this fellow charged with Terrorism for writing a story about an attack on his High School. Now you might say, his story was just too realistic, and close to a Plan of Atack, so there should be some limits.
But then you find out about another fellow who wrote a story that isn't even close to reality and must by it's very content be considered Fantastic in nature. But he still finds himself in Jail for writing a story in the United States.
So Yes, Snarking may eventually become a Capital Crime!
Mar '11
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
Tommy, this law was discussed at length in an earlier post that appears to have vanished into search engine limbo. As I recall, the interesting thing about the law is that it simply seeks to add images and social media sites to an existing law that uses much the same language to prohibit harassment/stalking behavior of other types, e.g., email, phone calls. I think it's a poorly-worded attempt to outlaw the kind of behavior that resulted in the suicide of the student who allegedly had his homosexual encounter broadcast over the internet by his roommate. The intent of the law is not to create a cause of action for random viewers of images, but rather to limit such cause to the individual targeted by the harasser. If you have the time, I'd be interested in your views on the constitutionality of both the old and new laws and on what, if anything, might fix any constitutional infirmities you identify.
Apr '11
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
First of all, why are conservatives nattering about a state law and a restriction on the scope of Congressional power imposed by the Federal Constitution? We should be celebrating this law. A country where Tennessee can criminalize upsetting people on the Internet is also a country where the states can stomp Obamacare's individual mandate into the dust and states are free to make and use Freedom bulbs.
Second, Mr. de Seno, Rob's and Ann's affiliations are with Kentucky, not TN, and judging from their comments last night, bringing action re clafoutis at whatever angle will get you a punch up the conk.
Edited on Jul 2, 2011 at 5:33amAug '10
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
Sorry, I don't see the connection.
The state I live in is constantly criminalizing things. The chances of my state stomping on Obamacare? Less than zero, if that were possible.
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
Here you go! It's worth discussing twice, I think.
Jun '10
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
And lets remember, Tennessee has a Republican governor and Republican controlled legislature.
Jul '10
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
Looks like I'll have to cover my tattoos in the Volunteer state.
Apr '11
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Sorry, I don't see the connection.
The state I live in is constantly criminalizing things. The chances of my state stomping on Obamacare? Less than zero,...
Perhaps I would have been clearer if I had written: "A country where Tennessee can criminalize upsetting people on the Internet is also a country where Virginia can stomp Obamacare's individual mandate into the dust and Texas is free to make and use Freedom bulbs."
The states are independent actors, not functional units in a central administrative state. The BoR contains restrictions the states put on the Federal government. That the states retain freedom of action for good or ill does not mean that obnoxious actions by one state are necessarily followed by wise actions by the same state.
The Constitution is a structure for freedom not a blueprint for perfection. That it is the latter is a projection of liberals' own psychic needs (a source for many obnoxious memes).
Aug '10
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
grendel
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Sorry, I don't see the connection.
Perhaps I would have been clearer if I had written: "A country where Tennessee can criminalize upsetting people on the Internet is also a country where Virginia can stomp Obamacare's individual mandate into the dust and Texas is free to make and use Freedom bulbs."
The states are independent actors, not functional units in a central administrative state... That the states retain freedom of action for good or ill does not mean that obnoxious actions by one state are necessarily followed by wise actions by the same state.
The Constitution is a structure for freedom not a blueprint for perfection.
Sure, and I'm glad our setup is supposed to be states as independent actors, rather than units of a central administrative state.
But not so glad that I want to cheer bad decisions at the state level.
Mar '11
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
But not so glad that I want to cheer bad decisions at the state level. · Jul 2 at 9:19am
I'm not so sure that this was such a bad decision. What Tennessee did was to take an existing, unremarkable anti-harassment law and simply expand its coverage to add images and social networking sites to the prohibited methods of harassment. The line that Tommy finds most offensive was, I believe, also present in the earlier law, and looks to me little different from the "reasonable person" standard that's used extensively in law with no controversy.
Now it may well be that there's no way to constitutionally ban cyber-bullying of the type that allegedly led to the suicide of the student I mentioned above. If so, then that's certainly a topic worth discussing.
Jun '10
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
I would like to take this moment to apologize to gargoyles everywhere.
Jul '10
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
Basil Fawlty
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
But not so glad that I want to cheer bad decisions at the state level. · Jul 2 at 9:19am
What Tennessee did was to take an existing, unremarkable anti-harassment law and simply expand its coverage to add images and social networking sites to the prohibited methods of harassment.
Wrongo Du Maxami. READ the Statute.
The image can get you in trouble if you send a private e-mail, not to harrass but just to share, and friends send it on (See Mom-Zilla for a complete description) whereupon someone down the line finds it offensive. There is no clause regarding INTENT to harrass.
The law allows for Passive postings on ANY site, not just social networking sites, that someone finds offensive. That means a Hunting Trophy shot seen by a PETA Activist can becomes grounds for Criminal action. Se my previous post before calling me silly for saying that.
The real test of a bad law is not when it is brought before a good judge, it is when it is brougt before a BAD judge.
This is not about Cyber Bullying, this is about thought control.
Edited on Jul 2, 2011 at 1:53pmMar '11
Re: Is Your Ricochet Avatar A Crime? Maybe In Tennessee
Jaydee_007
Se my previous post before calling me silly for saying that.
Jul 2 at 1:49pm
Edited on Jul 02 at 01:53 pm
Don't recall calling anyone silly, Jaydee. The original statute, as well as the amended version, presuppose an intended victim of harassment, not just a random viewer who claims to be offended. According to Volokh, the only new language deals with the reasonable expectation that the victim will view the image, i.e., is known to frequent the site on which the image is posted. I'm not saying that the amended statute is a model of clarity, but it's hardly the return of the Alien and Sedition Acts that it's being portrayed as.