Post A Picture That 'Causes Emotional Distress' And You Could Face Jailtime In Tennessee

from the outlawing-jerks? dept

Tue, Jun 7th 2011 11:33am — Mike Masnick

Over the last few years, we've seen a troubling trend in various state laws which attempt to come up with ways to outlaw being a jerk online. Many of these are based on politicians and/or the public taking an emotional reaction to something bad happening after some does something online that angered someone else. Of course, while it would be nice if jerks would go away or jerky behavior would cease, that's just not realistic. The real issue is: how can it be constitutional to outlaw being a jerk? In many cases it raises serious First Amendment issues, among other things. The latest to jump into this game is the state of Tennessee, which apparently decided that just throwing people in jail for sharing music subscription passwords wasn't enough: now they want to put people in jail for "causing emotional distress" to others.

The specific law outlaws posting a photo online that causes "emotional distress" to someone and has no "legitimate purpose." While the law does state that there needs to be "malicious intent," it also includes a massive loophole, in that it says that you can still be liable if the person "reasonably should know" that the actions would "frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress." Eugene Volokh notes all sorts of problems with this:

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.

Honestly, any time you have a law where the liability is based on how some other person feels, you've got a pretty serious problem. You can criminalize actions, but making someone a criminal because someone else feels "emotional distress" seems like a huge stretch.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: emotional distress, free speech, tennessee

116 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chris Rhodes (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:42am

My Repost From That Thread
I�m sure the hard-as-nails police departments around TN will feel very �emotionally distressed� when someone posts their dirty laundry to YouTube. What possible �legitimate purpose� could the filmmakers have for showing our fine boys in blue dispensing �justice� to an uppity citizen? They were obviously just trying to start something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:26pm
  
  Re: My Repost From That Thread
  > I�m sure the hard-as-nails police departments around TN
  > will feel very �emotionally distressed� when someone posts
  > their dirty laundry to YouTube.
  
  Best way to get around any of this is email the video/image to someone in another state and have them post it to YouTube or whatever. Tennessee law doesn't bind the entire world. Only people in Tennessee.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- teaisstronger, 10 Jun 2011 @ 7:46am
  
  Crushing Freedom of Press and Speech
  Everything and anything could be considered distressful. No state can do this, its un-constitutional and must be opposed by the Rule of Law or muskets and bayonets.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:46am

Tennessee
Isn't that the state where they banned science or education or some-such? I guess this is the result of outlawing education...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:38pm
  
  Re: Tennessee
  Yes. They banned science by allowing for MORE DATA to be presented so that people could make up their minds about origins science without excluding experiments that show that Evolution has many problems.
  
  If banning data is your idea of "science" then maybe it should be banned...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brian Schroth (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:55pm
    
    Re: Re: Tennessee
    Well, at least you picked an accurate name. Only a guy in PR could be so horribly inaccurate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Tennessee
    I want my data on Giant Rat deity in the sky to be presented and given equal terms as evolution as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jason, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
      What's pathetic here is the willingness of so many to roast PRMan, when he has claimed no religious affiliation.
      
      All he's done is suggest the inclusion of opposing viewpoints and without any evidence you've jumped to mockery. Your Reason Fairy thinks you're an idiot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
        No, PRman is claiming more data is presented when it's just data that's cherry picked and not scientifically accredited. And AC isn't making fun of PRman, he's making fun of creationism as a whole.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jason, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
        Well then allow me to make fun of origins science as a whole--evolution AND creationism inclusively.
        
        Science applies to what can be observed. The notion of a science of origins is oxymoronic, and furthermore the ongoing debate between the two has got to be the most annoying meme in the history of human communication.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Beta (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
        "Science applies to what can be observed. The notion of a science of origins is oxymoronic..."
        
        We can observe evidence and test theories about the past-- but I restrict myself to one argument with creationists per year, and I used it up in February.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jason, 8 Jun 2011 @ 7:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
        "We can observe evidence and test theories about the past"
        
        Test them against what?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jason, 8 Jun 2011 @ 7:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
        "We can observe evidence and test theories about the past-- but I restrict myself to one argument with creationists per year, and I used it up in February."
        
        Ah the glory of "science" that is NOT up for further testing and review!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
      Don't forget the flying spaghetti monster. I'm a devote Pastafarian and would be offended if my beliefs are left out.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Prisoner 201, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
        Ramen to that. May His Noodly Appendage touch you all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Killer_Tofu (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
        I will second that. Or is it 3rd? I like second helpings.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - HothMonster, 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Tennessee
    dont mock him guys, this happened:
    
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Fh-hZyDRmV8/TVWwn6GEFFI/AAAAAAAACe0/9010z6949PU/s1600/raptor- jesus-battles-the-unicorns-ps-the-unico-17918-1234478698-9.jpg
    
    Its well known that evolution is incomplete, so instead of study it and work on filling in the gaps we should give credence to a complete pile of horse shit that laughs in the face of every scientific fact from the past 200 years.
    
    Obviously Christians only believe in things that are 100% irrefutable that is why they believe in God because the bible makes it all irrefutable because its written by god
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - vbevan (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 10:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
      You know that evolution is only a theory...kind of like gravity.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BearGriz72 (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 4:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
        http://www.diigo.com/item/image/1evqv/2sn8
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uraclown, 9 Jun 2011 @ 4:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Tennessee
    Because people like you would flip your shit if Muslim, Hindi, or pastafarin (ramen) were taught alongside real science and your mythical sun god worship. Uh oh" was that offensive? Too bad I'm just outside Tennessee in Olive Branch.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Canadian_Athiest, 17 Jun 2011 @ 1:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Tennessee
    What is this "more data", and it better not be from a 2000 year old work of fiction.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2011 @ 10:36pm
  
  Re: Tennessee
  No, that's Texas, not tennessee.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donnicton, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:47am

Wait, so now you can jail people for causing you emotional distress, on top of already being able to sue them into a cardboard box for it?

Look out Sony, I'm movin' to Tennessee!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:50am

Did someone Goatse the Tennessee legislature?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Watts, 10 Jun 2011 @ 5:11am
  
  Re:
  I wish someone would. I'm in TN so I'll go to jail if I do it. Hey, anyone in the surrounding states want to do it for me? >8)~
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keroberos (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:55am

And the mommyfication of U.S. society takes another step closer to the perfect ideal.

Seriously 'causing emotional distress', WTF does that even mean. Just about anything can be defined as capable of causing emotional distress.

Seriously, when did we start thinking it would be a good idea to start legislating free speech just because someone might get their feelings hurt.

I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:35pm
  
  Re:
  Not mommy.
  
  Big brother.
  
  Big brother is a comforting figure. Always on your side. Not your mom. Won't tell mom, so you can share secrets with big brother. Big brother always watches out for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Where the hell was that big brother when I was growing up? My bi brother also told on me and beat me up when I did the same, of course he also beat me up for General Principle, I never liked that guy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SDAttorney (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:57am

Hmmm...I wonder...
Is 'testing the constitutionality' of the law considered a legitimate purpose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:18pm
  
  Re: Hmmm...I wonder...
  Depends. How much do you think Tennessee wants to pay to defend this law in court?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SDAttorney (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Hmmm...I wonder...
    Isn't there a legitimate purpose for any action, otherwise one wouldn't act. What is an example of an illegitimate purpose? Is pissing someone off or causing emotional distress a legitimate purpose? May depend on what they've done to you, right? And if what they've done to you is a subjective standard, then who are we to determine whether the re-action was legitimate? Hmmm. I didn't mean to get philosophical but I think there's a point in there somewhere.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...I wonder...
      > What is an example of an illegitimate purpose?
      
      Isn't it great that we now have our every action subject to review by some government drone who will determine it's legitimacy? *We* don't get to decide if our actions are legitimate or not. The government does.
      
      And this is supposedly the land of the free...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:58am

This is actually a place where anonymous SHOULD get involved, and I have a hunch they will. Finding embarrassing and distressing pictures and FLOODING Tennessee with them is right up their alley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A.R.M. (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:13pm

What a shame I don't live in TN.
I'd use this new law to remove politicians using ad campaigns to promote themselves.

Especially those which promise me the moon, but fail to deliver.

I'd find that distressful instantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:18pm
  
  Re: What a shame I don't live in TN.
  We all know laws do not apply to law-makers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 8 Jun 2011 @ 4:47am
    
    Re: Re: What a shame I don't live in TN.
    We all know laws do not apply to law-signers.
    
    ftfy
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Publius (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:18pm

Sheer Stupidity
Redundant, dumb, and opressive. Here's why.

Reading the bill they also have a condition that the vicitm has to have a "reasonable expectation" of viewing it. The only way you could argue that the vicitm has a reasonable expectation of view the materials is by sending it directly to the target. If somebody sends phone calls, letters, emails, Facebook posts to someone with the intent and result of genuine distress, isn't that just good old-fashioned harrassment, or if threatening direct violence, assault?

Was this bill written by some guy who's mom showed his prom date naked baby pictures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re: Sheer Stupidity
  "If somebody sends phone calls, letters, emails, Facebook posts to someone with the intent and result of genuine distress, isn't that just good old-fashioned harrassment..?"
  
  No, because harrassment is also a civil matter. This is harrassment on the internet--WAY MORE INTENSER!! CRIME!!!
  THE CHILDREN!! WAAAAAHHHH!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ruby, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:19pm

Jail?
So, hypothetically speaking, if my lyin' cheatin' soon to be ex-hubby posts a pic on Facebook of him with his new chiquita (which he surely must realise would cause me emotional distress), I can get him sent to jail? This is a cool law!
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwiz (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:21pm

The Distinguished Gentleman from New York, Mr. Anthony Weiner probably should stay away from Tennessee, seeing that picture sure caused me some emotional distress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- davey, 7 Jun 2011 @ 5:49pm
  
  Re:
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Davey, 7 Jun 2011 @ 5:53pm
  
  Re: emotional distress
  Envious emotional distress, or lust-based emotional distress?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 7:27pm
    
    Re: Re: emotional distress
    Envious emotional distress, or lust-based emotional distress?
    
    Neither. More of a "holy-batshit-I-did-not-need-to-see-that" kind of emotional distress. Kind of like when they showed
    Sipowicz's ass on NYPD Blue.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:26pm

Jurisdiction
How does the jurisdiction work on this? Do I have to be in the state when I post/send the picture? just pass through there once so they can get me? Come get me anyways just because I pissed somebody off, even though my state does not have a ridiculous law like this? sounds like this is going to be a law that they can't really enforce that well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Aaron deOliveira, 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:10pm
  
  Re: Jurisdiction
  how will this affect sites that are intended to cause distress like thedirty.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:47pm
  
  Re: Jurisdiction
  Many states have what are called Long Arm Statutes. Put simply, if your actions violate a law and harm someone in that state, that state can extradite you from whatever state you are in, whether what you did is a crime in your home state or not.
  
  So yes, Tennessee has just outlawed the first amendment nationally.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:28pm

This law causes me emotional distress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:17pm
  
  Re:
  find a picture of the text on that law and you are all set to go to court on it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HothMonster, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:30pm

IANAL | Being as I am not a citizen of Tennessee but am a US citizen if I posted a bunch of photoshops of the Tennessee supreme court having rabid sex with each other and a selection of animals with the "illegitimate" purpose of distressing them emotionally could I be charged? I mean since they are viewing my actions in Tennessee am I therefore "in" Tennessee breaking the law? Or would I have to physically go to Tennessee and upload the pictures from there for it to effect me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:56pm
  
  Re:
  You would probably be extradited to Tennessee. Google "long arm statute"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 5:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, they could certainly /try/...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 8 Jun 2011 @ 1:55am
  
  Re:
  Only if the animals show true distress or appear underage.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:32pm

To re-purpose an old saw, you can randomly point to a pic of any item in a Sears catalog and someone, somewhere, will be offended by it. What an utterly ridiculous law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- An Old Saw, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:33pm
  
  Re:
  I'm offended that you would want to re-purpose me. How dare you!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ArkieGuy (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:38pm

This law distresses me
Since the new law distresses me and it's posted, does that mean that all of the TN legislators need to be jailed or just the poor sob that had to publish it? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cara cohen, 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:45am
  
  Re: This law distresses me
  Quick take a picute. I do not think mental images count. Wisconson's Gov. has a High School Degree. Did this legislator get their degree at U of Appelatia? This law will be quashed as soon as it is tried.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:48pm

/waits for everyone and their brother to post goatse...

Because that's emotionally distressing. And anally distressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:50pm

a flaw in the rules
Since this is criminal law, not civil, people will get in trouble about it only if the DA wants them to, so it is basically impossible for ordinary citizens to force the issue. It is blatantly unconstitutional, so we can hope that no one will ever actually go to jail for breaking it, but it remains a threat until it is declared unconstitutional.

And here's the kicker: there is no penalty for lawmakers who enact this kind of trash. Well, unless the voters wake up enough to... No, no penalty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 5:00pm
  
  Re: a flaw in the rules
  I've long believed that using official authority to knowingly and willfully subvert or violate the constitution should be prosecuted as treason. Being poorly educated might save you from your first offense, but you'd likely get a court-ordered education on the constitution.
  
  As a bonus, it would tend to keep lawyers out of government, since it would make it really hazardous for them, as they would be incapable of pleading ignorance as a defense without committing perjury.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:50pm

Shouldn't be too long, at the rate this country is going before they open up Gulags....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keroberos (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:59pm

On Further Reflecion...
I thought of a something they could add to this law that would make me a whole-hearted supporter of it.

Anyone wanting to press charges under this law would be mandated to have sight, hearing, speech, and their fingers and toes surgically removed; or to sign a waiver never to make a complaint using this law ever again.

Win-win for all sides, those signing the waiver will have to learn how to just suck it up and deal like the rest of us; and those accepting surgical alteration will no longer be able to communicate in any meaningful manner so will no longer have to worry about their delicate feelings hurt ever again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:59pm

It's bad enough that we have the copyright vs free speach issue but now we tack on the legitimate perposes vs free speach? And who is going to decide on that with what standard?

P.S. Note to self: remind Aural Turpitude not to play his song about violating Baby Jesus when in Tennessee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-=rjh=-, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:02pm

Could happen to almost anyone
One of the things I've noticed with the growth of privately run fora replacing the more robust usenet groups, is willingness to shut down contentious issues, and this gives another tool (or at least, the threat of using it) that furthers this trend.

Look at what happened to the discussion around this photo, which polarised opinion between those who found it offensive and those who did not:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=36738721
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:05pm

Several people cause me emotional distress. If I lived in Tennessee, the prison population would skyrocket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:07pm

1) Find All pictures posted online by everyone that had anything to do with the creation of this law.
2) Be Disturbed by said images & file a complaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
V, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:07pm

The law...
This law causes me emotional distress. If they post a photo of the law... in the form of a PDF... I'm taking the entire government to court!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:13pm

America v2.0
In America v2.0 people are taught they are weak and they should always be "sensitive." ANYTHING that can be REMOTELY construed to be negative or, better yet, racial is horrific and we must be offended immediately. In America v2.0, people are sheep!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:39pm
  
  Re: America v2.0
  whatever sheepist
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:17pm

People Eating Tasty Animals
So I'm guessing that this law is going to make the members of PETA criminals for their advertisements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:22pm

This is what happens when politicians finally start being able to work the Internet...and then see how many people online are calling them fucktards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:26pm

What about
news sites? CNN posts plenty of pictures online that can cause emotional distress. In fact any news site posts pictures that can cause emotional distress. And if it's based on how a person feels, then we can complain about any picture posted.

And how will the state of Tenn be able to prosecute people who don't even live in that state, much less in the u.s.?

Sometimes I can't figure out if the stupidest politicians are in the state legislatures or the federal government. Both seem to be complete idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 5:02pm
  
  Re: What about
  Most states have Long Arm statutes. The fact you performed an act that isn't illegal in your state is legally irrelevant if the person feeling emotional distress lives in Tennessee.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 5:16am
    
    Re: Re: What about
    I think you might want to read up on these statutes. I doubt they can be used, or will be honored by most states, in the way you are implying.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 9:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What about
      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Long-Arm+Statute
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PlagueSD, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:30pm

Sweet!!! No more hungry children or abandoned animals commercials!! Oh, and I think the News will have to change their format. No more showing bombed areas with injured/mained people walking around. Away with shock TV. We're too weak and sensitive to see such things.

/sarcasm...or is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trish, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:42pm

jail state
too many empty cells in tennessee? too much taxpayer money floating around the coffers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ranranruu, 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:53pm

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/burning%20american%20flag.jpg

SEND ME UP FOR LIFE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:07pm

The Information Age meets The Dark Ages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glaze (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:26pm

Hey TN
Maybe you should stop screwing your parents and your kin and get your head out of your ass and stop passing stupid laws...

I hope that caused emotional distress to somebodies mothersister. Can I go to jail for that? Oh wait i don't live in TN... so i don't think so... last time i checked we still had some first ammendment rights in MN...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:13pm
  
  Re: Hey TN
  For now
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inforwars, 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:42pm

Sweet
Now maybe we can get our .GOV for all the emotional distress they have put me under with all their lies!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:57pm

techdirt logo makes me emotional distress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:34pm

While Goatse and 1 Guy 1 Jar would seem to be the right response, it is only going to convince them they are right.

When you haul the religious minded people into court for daring to post anti-abortion pictures, they will end up very confused. Because the standard they are using is not what the "average" person would find distressing, but only those who share the same ideals would find distressing.

This is one of those laws quickly passed to create warm fuzzy feelings in a certain demographic. We won't grab YOUR balls when you want to fly. We won't tap YOUR phones without a warrant. It is short sighted and a waste of energy to work yourself into a lather. I would suggest instead it is much better to calmly pick an easy target and demand the law be enforced.

Humane society, Homeless Children, "Church" Groups, The Red Cross, All Media outlets, and have yourself a field day as they try to explain how that is not how it is supposed to work, enjoy watching them get the pimp slap to the back of the head they seem to desperately need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
davey, 7 Jun 2011 @ 5:42pm

Seeing Sarah Palin's picture
makes me puke. Where do I collect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carmen Hawes, 7 Jun 2011 @ 7:28pm

Laws like this are passed to support the corruption
Laws like this are passed in Tennessee to support the corruption in the police departments and judicial system. Google "corruption in Tennessee" and start reading, and reading, and reading, and reading.... the corruption is rampant! My husband and I moved here from California several years ago and we are trying to decide on whether to stay and protest the corruption or get the heck out of here. Unless the locals start standing up for themselves, I think I would prefer to do the latter. How do you help people who cannot or will not help themselves? The corruption in the health care community has caused me so much in the way of my health and peace of mind. I am in my 50's and am scared to death of spending my retirement years here. A lot of people die here early deaths because of the corruption. The police and the courts are even worse. You'll see! Just remember to google "corruption in Tennessee" and start reading. Maybe some of you outside this state can make some phone calls to put pressure on the FBI or someone to come in here and help us. Just read the stories, and do what you can. As far as this law, well they have a reason for passing this law. After you read the stories about the corruption, you will understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carmen Hawes, 7 Jun 2011 @ 7:35pm

Laws like this are passed to support the corruption
Laws like this are passed in Tennessee to support the corruption in the police departments and judicial system. Google "corruption in Tennessee" and start reading, and reading, and reading, and reading.... the corruption is rampant! My husband and I moved here from California several years ago and we are trying to decide on whether to stay and protest the corruption or get the heck out of here. Unless the locals start standing up for themselves, I think I would prefer to do the latter. How do you help people who cannot or will not help themselves? The corruption in the health care community has caused me so much in the way of my health and peace of mind. I am in my 50's and am scared to death of spending my retirement years here. A lot of people die here early deaths because of the corruption. The police and the courts are even worse. You'll see! Just remember to google "corruption in Tennessee" and start reading. Maybe some of you outside this state can make some phone calls to put pressure on the FBI or someone to come in here and help us. Just read the stories, and do what you can. As far as this law, well they have a reason for passing this law. After you read the stories about the corruption, you will understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2011 @ 1:28am

Several agencies, including the FBI, US Marshals, and several state and county police departments, post pictures of their officials with guns. Given some of the shiznit that they've done, would it be that surprising to see the friends and family of shooting victims go after officials in Tennessee using this law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
monkyyy, 8 Jun 2011 @ 5:03pm

this law has caused me distress
i read about it on a computer screen
and a computer screen shows images
meaning this law has posted a image online that caused me distress
im sueing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daniel, 8 Jun 2011 @ 6:16pm

Tennessee, home of the stupid...
How is it even possible that you idiots are worried about Omaba turning the US into a 'socialist state' when you are doing your best to turn it into a fascist dictatorship all by yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ShakinSheik, 9 Jun 2011 @ 4:47am

Legitimacy
How about laws with a "Legitimate Purpose"

What the hell are those boneheads in Nashville trying to prove?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curious, 9 Jun 2011 @ 6:45am

Tennessee law article
Is this article about a bill or a law that passed? "Post A Picture That 'Causes Emotional Distress' And You Could Face Jailtime In Tennessee".

I live in Tennessee and watch the legislature. This one got by me if it passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roelof, 9 Jun 2011 @ 8:12am

UN regulation forbids censorship internet.
Recently the UN decided open internet is a human right. What Tennessee is doing, is in conflict with UN resolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul, 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:58am

Idiots in Tennessee
Are you kidding me? Let's try and recall a little something we have called the FIRST AMENDMENT!

So what happens if a woman who can't have children goes online and starts seeing lots of pictures of children that have been posted on their mom or dad's facebook page, for grandma to see? I think that will be "emotionally distressing!"

LAWMAKERS = CONTROL FREAKS = IDIOTS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tennessean, 9 Jun 2011 @ 11:38am

Honest Tennessean
As a freedom loving Tennessean, I think it's safe to say that my personal opinion of this is that the author and supporters of this should be shot in the head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not here, 9 Jun 2011 @ 3:27pm

online pics
Did i read this right and it only applies to online pics. What about printed flyers? Lets wallpaper the Capitol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
t, 9 Jun 2011 @ 6:54pm

1st amendment protects ofensive speech
kiss my ass tennissee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
t, 9 Jun 2011 @ 6:56pm

this law is causing me emotional distress
Im gonna sue tennissee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:), 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:48pm

Looks like Tennessee got Rick Rolled one too many times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:), 9 Jun 2011 @ 9:48pm

Looks like Tennessee got Rick Rolled one too many times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 10 Jun 2011 @ 1:44am

WTF
THIS IS A BULLSHIT LAW

Wouldnt you agree that a law shouldnt be something based on opinion? How would you know your boundaries? This is the stupidest law I think I've come accross anx it just proves the stupidity and lack of common sense these political figures who approved it have.

Im going to go and post a big hairy veiny dick on some TN website now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cara cohen, 10 Jun 2011 @ 3:38am

Article is Idiotic
This is an idiotic article written by someone absolutely unfamiliar with Constituional law. It has not been tried yet and if it is will be appealed out in a second. For instance as we all should know US Sup. Ct. has ruled Falwell v. Hustler hyperbole is an absolue excuse. You may make a joke.

Private persons are protected but, quasi private are NOT. As soon as your victim inserts himself by suing and it goes in the paper as do the public moving papers so is the person now a public person. Public persons are not protected from any damage.

Idiotic laws are slipped in all the time and are quashed. The writer of the article is an idiot who does not understand basic 1st Ammendment rights. Cough. McPherson. End of trial. Once things go through US Sup. Ct. there is no going back. Abortion will NEVER be reversed. Bush knew this while campagning. It is sad that basic law is not understood by the common American who at least you would think woulld be aware of common law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sladge, 10 Jun 2011 @ 4:00am

this law causes-me distress
If this law causes-me distress... I�ll be using it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zwig, 10 Jun 2011 @ 7:09am

What about Christ on the Cross?
What about a picture of a bloody, beaten Chhrist on the Cross?

Someone will be offended and then someone will go to jail.

Defend your rights and privacy:
Vote Ron Paul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad Ward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:51am

Violation of Rule of Law
I'm a citizen of TN and this is in violation of Article 1, Section 19 of the state constitution! We have freedom of press and speech which includes disturbing images.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 10 Jun 2011 @ 1:16pm

What about green olives?
I once saw a talk show where they were dealing with phobias. This lady came on who was violently afraid of green olives. She would scream and run out of the room if she saw one! That's pretty clearly emotional distress, but are we all going to have to start putting censor bars over our pickle jars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:31pm

I hate living in this state. Some time ago they finally changed a law to where you COULD take guns with you to bars. Why in the hell would you want to mix up alcohol and guns? To lower our population?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew, 11 Jun 2011 @ 12:23am

This is A big problem... an this is hindering my freedom
And here's why.. number one i live in TN. and am appalled that my state, where i lived all my life, think they have the right to restrict me from being able to say and do as i please, not only hav they made it a law for me to pay money to things that shouldn't be required for me to pay, but now they are saying that i cant do something on a public domain, if i post a picture to facebook, there's something on there that if it offends someone then they can mark it as spam, and facebook will remove it. Here's the solution, america needs to be reformed. and not according to legislature, but to what the people want... Neither america nor TN will restrict my freedoms. I AM FREE...BUT I, YET STILL, HAVE TO PAY THE TAXES THAT PAY THOSE FOOLS IN OFFICE. I WANT THEM TO PUT ME IN JAIL. CAUSE AMAZINGLY ENOUGH I AND ANYONE ELSE CAN TAKE THIS TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE INTERNET CANNOT BE CONTROLLED, IT WASNT CREATED BY THEM, ITS A PUBLIC DOMAIN. ANYTHING THAT I POST HAS NO WAY OF A RIGHT TO PLACE ME OR ANYONE ELSE IN JAIL. ITS AN IDIOTIC LAW, pretty soon its going to be OH youre walking down the street after curfew, youre going to jail. what a bunch of pricks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew, 11 Jun 2011 @ 12:25am

This is A big problem... an this is hindering my freedom
And here's why.. number one i live in TN. and am appalled that my state, where i lived all my life, think they have the right to restrict me from being able to say and do as i please, not only hav they made it a law for me to pay money to things that shouldn't be required for me to pay, but now they are saying that i cant do something on a public domain, if i post a picture to facebook, there's something on there that if it offends someone then they can mark it as spam, and facebook will remove it. Here's the solution, america needs to be reformed. and not according to legislature, but to what the people want... Neither america nor TN will restrict my freedoms. I AM FREE...BUT I, YET STILL, HAVE TO PAY THE TAXES THAT PAY THOSE FOOLS IN OFFICE. I WANT THEM TO PUT ME IN JAIL. CAUSE AMAZINGLY ENOUGH I AND ANYONE ELSE CAN TAKE THIS TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE INTERNET CANNOT BE CONTROLLED, IT WASNT CREATED BY THEM, ITS A PUBLIC DOMAIN. ANYTHING THAT I POST HAS NO WAY OF A RIGHT TO PLACE ME OR ANYONE ELSE IN JAIL. ITS AN IDIOTIC LAW, pretty soon its going to be OH youre walking down the street after curfew, youre going to jail. what a bunch of pricks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sam West, 11 Jun 2011 @ 1:58pm

TN
This is why we chose not to settle in TN. Nut cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe, 12 Jun 2011 @ 5:15am

most horribly worded law ever??
lots of things cause emotional distress to lots of people

when i was 20 and moved in with my 19 year old girlfriend, her parents were BEYOND emotionally distressed - should i go to jail because i upset them?

if i draw a cartoon of muhammed wearing a bomb turban...
if i post a photoshopped picture of jesus at a gay parade dressed up like an s & m dude...
if i post a picture of a homophobe photoshopped to be wearing an evening gown and makeup...

how is it that politicians can be so simple minded as to not imagine that these things should not be illegal??? idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mikado, 14 Jun 2011 @ 6:38pm

also intimidate nice one (writen in by a TOTAL IDIOT) (a dark scenario) A PEDOFILE SEES OWN PICtURE UP ON SEX OFFENDER REGISTER finds it intimidat'ing to him and it gets taken down THEN WHAT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
titus, 15 Jun 2011 @ 3:19pm

Alright,
I find this emotionally distressing. I think I'm going to turn in the blogger who posted this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Distressed, 18 Jun 2011 @ 9:53am

Tennessee Web Sites
I'm sure with all of the government websites in Tennessee, there will be plenty that have posted a picture that causes me distress... I'm so pleased to know that I, and all of my fellow internet users (yes, Tennessee - there are more than 20 of us) can now sue the state and make them pay for harming me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seller, 19 Jun 2011 @ 7:28pm

hhhhhhhhhh
i should go live there but really there a lot of photos that make you sad on the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brandt Hardin, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:47pm

Potentially Offensive...
You can see my response to this new law as a Tennessee artist on my artist's blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/07/potentially-offensive-portrait-governor.html with my portrait of our Governor Bill Haslam and his ravishing wife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 20 Apr 2012 @ 10:20am

Pretty useful law imho
As someone was stalked by a dangerous person, I am thankful for this law. It scares me to think that I'm a just google search away from being rediscovered by my stalker. I am glad I have some legal authority to insist that my picture stays of the 'net. I hope it never comes to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]