TN taking cue from the UK? Causing emotional distress is now illegal

[shira]

Ha ha ha. Yet another moronic law from a red state.

 

[shira]

Shens. If you let your kid get that fat and don't have a valid medical reason (ie thyroid is fucked), it's your fault, not 4chan's fault.

I think the point of DS's post was reply # 63865351.

 

[senseamp]

Tennesseans are a bunch of panzies.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Isn't the picture of the Nashville Predator kind of menacing? We're all screwed.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

That's bloody stupid, who gets to decide what is emotionally distressing?

But now they have the freedom to live their lives knowing that no one will try to emotionally distress them!

 

[Brigandier]

But now they have the freedom from somone trying to emotionally distress them!

ftfy

 

[Wreckem]

This law definately steps over the line.

However, free speech isn't absolute. Sending a person or just even posting a photo of their spouse thats been photoshopped with a bullet hole in their head, isn't completely protected by free speech. They could sue you for IIED. You also cannot use free speech to harass someone.

 

[Anarchist420]

I agree that this is bad, but I don't consider it anything new. Property rights have never been respected in the Federal Republic.

A law based upon a similar premise, is how it's illegal to take pictures of someone nude with your own camera and off the nude person's property No property rights were violated, but since it may cause emotional distress it's illegal.

 

[werepossum]

Sounds more like it is meant to prevent racist photoshops, internet shock sites, extreme violence and snuff media from being hosted in TN as the bill enumerates images that intimidate, frighten and/or cause distress. People here in East TN (where Haslam is from) are pretty open about sexuality, there are tons of sex shops around here, along with large billboards advertising their goods.

This also now means that posting a picture of Obama photoshopped to look like an ape (in a manner similar to how Bush was portrayed) is now illegal, I believe many here were calling for blood when those images surfaced.

That being said, I must watch my posting style as rudder, dali71, werepossum, myself and the rest of AT TN crew now have a legal weapon to use against one another. :-o

Truce, guys?

ahahaha

LOL Truce indeed.

Sometimes I forget that my state's politicians are, well, politicians. This is a silly law as most things have the potential to cause emotional distress to someone. A picture of a Mustang could cause emotional distress to someone with a loved one killed in a Mustang, a high rise to someone whose cat fell off one, etc.

 

[dmcowen674]

TN taking cue from the UK? Causing emotional distress is now illegal

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ting-images-that-cause-emotional-distress.ars

I posted a disclaimer for anyone in Tennessee on my site summarily banning anyone if they find themselves "offended".

 

[Infohawk]

Sounds like I should move to TN and intentionally decide to be 'emotionally distressed' by anything someone says. Think the law will allow me to rake in millions in damages?

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is already actionable in most civil courts. Of course it's not quite as simple as having your feelings hurt so you're concerns aren't well-placed.

 

[HAL9000]

But now they have the freedom to live their lives knowing that no one will try to emotionally distress them!

That is more violating other peoples rights than a freedom in itself.

 

[Schadenfroh]

ACLU of Tennessee to the rescue, nice of them to take a break from the "predominant" issue of the day and attempt to thwart this violation of the constitution.

http://www.dnj.com/article/20110628...e-prepared-challenge-new-offensive-images-law

Responding to what it claims are numerous requests for assistance and after a thorough legal analysis, ACLU of Tennessee today announced plans to file a lawsuit challenging Public Chapter 362, which the ACLU said violates the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment.
...
The “offensive images” law was intended to curtail Internet harassment but provides no criteria for determining what is offensive or disturbing. The new law’s overly broad and vague language leaves everyone with an online presence vulnerable to prosecution, the ACLU press release said.

Not much time left before July 1, seems we will need to live under this law for a little while unless a judge declares it unconstitutional.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

how about a law that says suing for emotional distress is illegal?

 

[OCGuy]

Wont stand up in court.