Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
All Cretans Are Liars and the New Tennessee “Offensive Images” Law
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?
Published in General
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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
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.
Walter Lippmann.An Inquiry into the Principles of the Good Society · Jun 12 at 6:36am
Yes, but Republicans? Heaven help us!
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.
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
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.
This is an update of what appears to be an existing “anti-stalking” law. Any thoughts on the constitutionality of the original statute?
This is embarrassing for Republicans. Shame on them.
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.
“Cretan” comes to mind not only with regard to the paradox, but with regard to another meaning of the word…
What the kazoo? I worked in Tennessee for a while, and thought I had respect for the state. Now they pull this?! Oy. Vey.
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.
Crow’s Nest:
X-Post Facto? Are they a competitor of Fed-Ex? Paging Emily Litella.
X-Post-Facto – After the Fact.
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.
Why don’t you read the Code of Conduct regarding personal attacks.
Does this mean that there are extradition proceedings under way right now to promulgate the prosecution of Anthony Wiener by the great state of Tennessee?
Not sure spelling disputes quite rise to the level of personal attacks. By which I mean I’m sure they don’t.
You’re exactly right, they don’t.But saying I’m not a decent person does!
And I spelled the word EXACTLY as I intended to.As a 3D artist I was making an inside reference to DeviantArt, since the topic is about offensive images. I figured people here were smart enough to figure out what I meant regardless of the missing E and double entendre`. Also note the hyphens…
I was also hoping for enough curiosity to maybe introduce some folks to 3D artwork. But Not to Be.
Keep in mind that the 3D art community is very sensitive to these different laws because as in the Overturned California law mere Depictions of Animal Cruelty were violations. With CGI I can create Realistic Depictions that someone could decide is Cruelty and viola I’m in Big Trouble.
And Don’t say it can’t happen here. Because it has happened, Twice.
Sorry, bud, DeviantArt was too abstruse a reference for me. But now I am interested because this is something I know nothing about. Perhaps you can help educate us with a post on the member feed exposing the Ricochet Community to the 3d art community?
While I’m an active member of DeviantArt to keep current with trends etc, I don’t post my work there I post on Renderosity which is more geared toward 3D artwork specifically.
I did include a Link to one image in my first post which is Humor/Horror but could be deemed to be Offensive by someone for purposes of enforcing the New Law in Tennessee.
I have more serious images Here, Here, and Here.
These can give you an idea of what is possible with Home Use CGI software that runs for under $250.00. (Only $49.00 for introductory versions.)
Aww, Kennedy, I feel snubbed. No modern, high-functioning Flirting for me?
BTW, Uncle K, you look real fetching with a cute babe in your arms. So fetching it’s almost causing me “emotional distress”.
Basil Fawlty:
Is the original statute unconstitutional, because it restricts my right to email harassing words to an individual? Or is it the new prohibition of images that’s the problem? Or is it the new prohibition of use of social media sites that’s the problem? I’d be interested in any thoughts on the subject, since I’m really not sure where I come down on these issues. ·Jun 12 at 12:12pm
Robert, would you be OK with the law if it were rewritten to clarify that 1) the poster had to have the malicious intent to harass a specific victim with his posting; and 2) any offense caused to people other than the intended victim would not put you in violation of the law?
BTW, Uncle K, you look real fetching with a cute babe in your arms. So fetching it’s almost causing me “emotional distress”. ·Jun 12 at 3:16pm
The heir to the Most Ancient and Noble House of Smith is even better than a dog, babe-magnet-wise. Woulda been better if that huge blanket wasn’t covering up the nifty double-breasted vest. Working on getting a better pic, though it could cause serious distress.
Is the original statute unconstitutional, because it restricts my right to email harassing words to an individual? Or is it the new prohibition of images that’s the problem? Or is it the new prohibition of use of social media sites that’s the problem? I’d be interested in any thoughts on the subject, since I’m really not sure where I come down on these issues. ·Jun 12 at 12:12pm
The law is so poorly worded that if you share a political cartoon with friends and some takes offense, you can be charged. It doesn’t matter whether you intended to harass someone or not.
Is the original statute unconstitutional, because it restricts my right to email harassing words to an individual? Or is it the new prohibition of images that’s the problem? Or is it the new prohibition of use of social media sites that’s the problem? I’d be interested in any thoughts on the subject, since I’m really not sure where I come down on these issues.
The law is so poorly worded that if you share a political cartoon with friends and some takes offense, you can be charged. It doesn’t matter whether you intended to harass someone or not.
It doesn’t matter if you send it to friends or not.
The law includes Posting online. So if you post a Trophie Photo of you hunting to your online Photo Share Album, and a PETA Member finds that web posting of your pictures, and they become offended,you are in violation .
The fact that in the process of stepping all over our rights someone is protected from harrassment is irrelevant.
We in the 3D Art Community have seen this stuff before and every time our Hysterical Reactions are Borne True!