Tennessee does it again! link

Tennessee residents: Come July 1, 2011, the state may punish you with jail time or fines should you “transmit or display an image” online — social networks such as Facebook and Twitter included — that has the possibility to “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress” to anyone who sees it.

The state of Tennessee amended Tennessee Code Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 3 of its harassment law, which was previously focused on malicious person-to-person communication, to apply to anyone transmitting potentially offensive images on the web.

The exact language of the law now reads:

(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.

No electronic communication is safe under the new law, as subsections have been added to included images shared via social networks where the victim could possibly see it. The bill now includes language that requires social networking sites to hand over the offending materials to the government if there’s a warrant or court order or if the person who posted the images provides consent.

The vague nature of Tennessee’s amended harassment law has many calling it unconstitutional, including UCLA School of Law professor Eugene Volokh.

Volokh describes several behaviors that will soon be illegal:

“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.”

The amendment was passed May 18, signed into law May 30 by Governor Bill Haslam and will go into effect July 1.

This is not Tennessee’s first foray into controversial digital legislation. The digitally-conscious-but-not-exactly-savvy state previously made it illegal to share passwords to sites such as Netfix.

[via Ars Technica]

I can understand this one. The other won't have a very long lifespan, though.

Fortunately for me, I do not reside there and I dont have a social network account.


More than 20 years ago, during a school exercise to check how we may fare in a job interview, some of my classmates said that my face was frightening. One of them even dubbed me a killer.

I laughed a lot on that one, but they were very serious.

Did you end up having the swastika tattoo on your forehead removed with a laser?

I suppose that exchanging pictures about some late 19th century French painters will be banned.

Mainly thinking about Courbet's "L'origine du monde" (Absolutely NSFW even on Wikipedia) or Ingres' "Le bain turc"

No tatoo whatsoever.

I think it was my look that did it (black hair, black eyes, tall and a bit on the muscular side, no very smiling).

Still the same with just more years and a few more pounds.

wow, that's one of Courbet's paintings that I've never seen.
j/k, when I think of someone whose face is frightening and looks like a killer my default image is charles manson.

I get that a lot.

You do have those Manson eyes - lol.

Was there a jail break recently? ;)

...and yet, Amish beard.

Meanwhile, in Kentucky, motorists were warned that Zombies were ahead and to expect delays accordingly. The powers that be shut down the sign and warned that "they were not amused."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/...y-highway.html

I wonder how Gravdigr is doing? :eek:

He has a lot of work: putting these creatures back under a double footfootfoot.


(6 feet under)

Not new news, but new to me.


http://www.npr.org/2010/12/01/131698...d-alters-brain

Hmmm...

Eat a potato chip, go to rehab.

So simple, yet so complex.