TN Image Law

[Zorah Valtero]

This law doesn't mean jack to the other 49 states, but if you're based in TN, watch your back.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... stress.ars

Lemme run off all the questions at the pass.
Unconstitutional? Yeah. This law is a direct violation of first amendment rights to free speech.
Can't be enforced? Most likely it can't. One state's government can't monitor the entire Internet and trace all IPs of all posters in every state, let alone one.
Can it really happen, prosecution? Even if it is difficult to enforce and also unconstitutional, yes, there is potential for prosecution for the "lucky few."
What does this mean to you? Probably nothing, as long as you don't live in TN.
What does this mean to me? I'm watching my ass. This basically means I'm unable to post any "artwork" (I use this term loosely) until ACLU's lawsuit against the state of TN has the law repealed.

Just another blow to our rights, I guess. Oh, by the way, the law went into effect July 1, 2011.

[Duncan Edwards]

I live in THE GREAT STATE OF TENNESSEE now and have all of my life. It is the bright spot at the center of the universe for me and I doubt that will ever change. Yes, it's a law that is unconstitutionally vague and will last about fifteen seconds into the first court challenge but it only sounds wrong to folks who weren't raised with Tennessee in your brain. We understand that its only intent is to provide courts with a tool to get after folks who want to shock someone with an image that our common sense tells us is wrong. Note that I said "our" as in us Tennesseans. We reserve the right to be us. The real intent is to make this part of anti-harassment legislation and not to curtail free speech.

I will continue to propagate "shocking" images from Tennessee without fear or concern of any sort.

[Aiko]

Hmm, images that can cause emotional distress... how about this one:


Actually, considering all the things people tend to make a fuss about, it's harder to think of images that are "safe" to use than ones that could get you sued. Eg. try showing this one to someone in middle management:

[MuddyEddie]

That first image of yours, Aiko, was very disturbing to me! I hate having cat hairs in my food!

[Zorah Valtero]

I live in THE GREAT STATE OF TENNESSEE now and have all of my life. It is the bright spot at the center of the universe for me and I doubt that will ever change. Yes, it's a law that is unconstitutionally vague and will last about fifteen seconds into the first court challenge but it only sounds wrong to folks who weren't raised with Tennessee in your brain. We understand that its only intent is to provide courts with a tool to get after folks who want to shock someone with an image that our common sense tells us is wrong. Note that I said "our" as in us Tennesseans. We reserve the right to be us. The real intent is to make this part of anti-harassment legislation and not to curtail free speech.

I will continue to propagate "shocking" images from Tennessee without fear or concern of any sort.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, and the original intent of the law. It should be mentioned, though, that the law goes back for a rewrite next summer that will clarify specifically what is actually prohibited, rather than a broad, blanket law. That is, of course, unless ACLU gets their hands on it first (which, given the slugglishly slow pace of our legal system, could very well mean it goes to court right as it gets rewritten ).

[Mynock]

Hmm, images that can cause emotional distress... how about this one:

That's very offensive. I hate it when my General Tso's is undercooked.

[Billie Bonce]

Eg. try showing this one to someone in middle management:

Hey! How could you find how much money can I save monthly after paying all the bills? I clearly see the second maximum at December 2008 and negative values since the beginning of 2011! This definitely causes emotional distress...

[Nessie]

I have a picture that I took all by myself of a dead raccoon.

Does anybody want to see that?

Or is it upsetting?

Nessie

[Sydney]

This seems like the sort of law that was created with good intentions, but warped by others to enable them to try to trounce something unrelated, or attempt to apply their community standards to the world via the internet.