Post A Picture That 'Causes Emotional Distress' And You Could Face Jailtime In Tennessee
from the outlawing-jerks? dept
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.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
My Repost From That Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My Repost From That Thread
> 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 ]
Crushing Freedom of Press and Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tennessee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tennessee
If banning data is your idea of "science" then maybe it should be banned...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tennessee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tennessee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
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 ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
Test them against what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
Ah the glory of "science" that is NOT up for further testing and review!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tennessee
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tennessee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tennessee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tennessee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tennessee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look out Sony, I'm movin' to Tennessee!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm...I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmmm...I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...I wonder...
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a shame I don't live in TN.
Especially those which promise me the moon, but fail to deliver.
I'd find that distressful instantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a shame I don't live in TN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a shame I don't live in TN.
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheer Stupidity
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 ]
Re: Sheer Stupidity
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 ]
Jail?
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: emotional distress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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 ]
Jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction
So yes, Tennessee has just outlawed the first amendment nationally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This law distresses me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This law distresses me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because that's emotionally distressing. And anally distressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a flaw in the rules
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 ]
Re: a flaw in the rules
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Further Reflecion...
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 ]
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 ]
Could happen to almost anyone
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) Be Disturbed by said images & file a complaint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The law...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America v2.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America v2.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People Eating Tasty Animals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about
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 ]
Re: What about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/sarcasm...or is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jail state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SEND ME UP FOR LIFE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey TN
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 ]
Re: Hey TN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sweet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Seeing Sarah Palin's picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws like this are passed to support the corruption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws like this are passed to support the corruption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
Tennessee, home of the stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legitimacy
What the hell are those boneheads in Nashville trying to prove?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tennessee law article
I live in Tennessee and watch the legislature. This one got by me if it passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UN regulation forbids censorship internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots in Tennessee
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 ]
Honest Tennessean
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
online pics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1st amendment protects ofensive speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this law is causing me emotional distress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF
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 ]
Article is Idiotic
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 ]
this law causes-me distress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about Christ 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 ]
Violation of Rule of Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about green olives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is A big problem... an this is hindering my freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is A big problem... an this is hindering my freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
most horribly worded law ever??
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alright,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tennessee Web Sites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hhhhhhhhhh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Potentially Offensive...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty useful law imho
[ link to this | view in chronology ]