Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: SypheDMar on June 10, 2011, 06:12:13 pm
-
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/tenn-law-bans-posting-images-that-cause-emotional-distress.ars
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.
So who lives here? (I wanna arrest you now) :rolleyes:
-
Persons or groups likely to be in violation of this law:
Netflix
Hulu
TNT
A&E / Subsidiaries
MySpace
Facebook
Twitter <insert Rep. Wiener joke here>
AOL / Timewarner
Google
Cousin Jed (example)
Random grade-schooler
Persons or groups likely to be fined:
Random grade-schooler
Persons or groups likely to pay the fine:
-
Constitutional challenge in 3...2...1...
-
How does this relate to democracy? Prolifers cant post dead fetuses anymore?
-
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/tenn-law-bans-posting-images-that-cause-emotional-distress.ars
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.
So who lives here? (I wanna arrest you now) :rolleyes:
This is the state that legalized the consumption of roadkill. The only thing that surprises me about our legislature is that they can form the language necessary to write the bills. Then again, I'd be entirely unsurprised if they were ghostwritten by someone from out of state. Actually, I'd be unsurprised if the ghostwriters of our laws were just screwing around to see how long it would take for the legislature to realize they weren't writing what they were being told to write.
-
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/tenn-law-bans-posting-images-that-cause-emotional-distress.ars
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.
So who lives here? (I wanna arrest you now) :rolleyes:
This is the state that legalized the consumption of roadkill. The only thing that surprises me about our legislature is that they can form the language necessary to write the bills. Then again, I'd be entirely unsurprised if they were ghostwritten by someone from out of state. Actually, I'd be unsurprised if the ghostwriters of our laws were just screwing around to see how long it would take for the legislature to realize they weren't writing what they were being told to write.
xD
Before this gets serious (and it seems to be starting to), we can troll Tennessee, and they won't be able to enforce it. This is probably true even within Tennessee, but if they actually do enforce it, don't blame me. :<
-
Goatse the state legislature?
-
I'd advise against trolling Tennessee on a web forum, you could be fined up to $5000. :P
-
let's all print out offensive/disgusting photos and mail them to tennessee's legislature.
-
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/tenn-law-bans-posting-images-that-cause-emotional-distress.ars
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.
So who lives here? (I wanna arrest you now) :rolleyes:
This is the state that legalized the consumption of roadkill.
why do you want to illegalize the consumption of road kill? i run over a deer im damn sure gonna skin it and eat it. otherwise its just wasted meat. in fact why cant i use a pickup truck with spikes on the front for hunting? granted its not as fun as getting a head shot with the rifle (or is it?). further more why the **** did they illegalize cannibalism?
-
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/tenn-law-bans-posting-images-that-cause-emotional-distress.ars
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.
So who lives here? (I wanna arrest you now) :rolleyes:
This is starting to sound like the Super Injunction fiasco we had here in England a few weeks ago (can't say UK because they went valid in Scotland and possibly not in Northern Ireland and Wales)
Edit to distinguish between N Ireland and the Republic of Ireland