Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tennessee Bans Posting 'Offensive' Images Online

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the I-find-this-offensive dept.

Censorship 372

Chaonici writes "Last Monday, Tennessee's Governer Bill Haslam signed a law prohibiting the transmission or display of an image that is likely to 'frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to' anyone who sees it. In Tennessee, it is already illegal to use other methods of communication, such as telephones or e-mail, to offend someone; the new law updates legislation to include images sent or posted online. However, the scope of this law is broader, in that anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court finds that a violator should have known that someone would be offended by the image in question, they face up to a year in prison or up to $2,500 in fines."

cancel ×

372 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Someone got a picture of the law? (5, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393566)

I'm pretty sure it would offend most people on here. Ironic that a law text should be able to break itself.

I'm so confused (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393996)

They say offensive images. Wait... does that mean this text is legal:

What do you call a nigger with a stutter? A cocoon!

But if you took a screenshot of it and re-posted it, you'd be breaking the law?

Just askin'.

Mature adults can get past the crude joke and appreciate the question I am asking. The rest of you will get your panties in a wad over it and should probably consider moving to Tennessee, where the good benevolent government will support your desire to control what other people say, post, and laugh at, I mean um support the fact you got "offended" at something.

If some state has the balls to pass a law stating that "anyone person over the age of 18 who gets offended at what another person says, writes, or depicts and complains about it shall be guilty of a misdemeanor" then I am packing up my bags and moving THAT DAY. Can't we just have one place that doesn't validate the crybabies and tells them to get over it? Just one? The bleeding heart gutless pansies who want to live in a G-rated fantasy land can have the other 49. They outnumber the adults anyway.

...really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393568)

I don't see this ever being upheld in court....

Re:...really? (3, Funny)

sarysa (1089739) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393920)

Maybe not the Supreme Court, but how many tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees would it take to get that far? All for a $2500 fine?

Looks like Tennessee has a strong extortion racket going, so long as they don't get greedy and go after rotten.com or something.

Let the lawsuits begin (1)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393572)

People are so thin-skinned these days and are prone to playing the offended/victim card. Tennessee must be a great state to be a lawyer.

Re:Let the lawsuits begin (3, Interesting)

Technician (215283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393808)

Hmm, how far does that jurisdiction reach? Does it include links? Does it include out of the country? They should have fun with the sudden influx of goat links. Good luck with that.

It's a picture of (random name), I'm offended (1)

SirGeek (120712) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393574)

I say any picture of Gov. Haslam is offensive and he should have known it. Put his arse in to jail.

Riiiight (1)

drummerboybac (1003077) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393576)

Boy that would really put a damper on goatse, wouldn't it?

Re:Riiiight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393634)

That's probably how the idea for the bill got started.

Too bad they don't have a TLD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393582)

Could have registered goatse.tn

LOLOLOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393584)

you want some goatse govna ????

How about newspapers? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393586)

Does this law apply to online news sources as well? That would make it *very* difficult to report on the new in an unbiased fashion, since almost all news nowadays is sure to emotionally offend someone. Not that unbiased news reporting happens a lot these days.

Re:How about newspapers? (3, Insightful)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393880)

The newspapers will probably not be prosecuted unless they attack the DA or other political figures.

Re:How about newspapers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393936)

Do you think any news outlet in the US _doesn't_ report the news in a biased fashion?

Re:How about newspapers? (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36394020)

Do you think any news outlet in Known Space _doesn't_ report the news in a biased fashion?

Fixed that for you.

I am not in Tennessee. (0)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393590)

In before someone posts Goatse.

http://d.facdn.net/art/mearu/1291214087.mearu_tigerlilycopy-1.jpg [facdn.net]

Re:I am not in Tennessee. (2)

bev_tech_rob (313485) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393728)

In before someone posts Goatse.

Too late...

Re:I am not in Tennessee. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36394022)

It wasn't when I posted. When a new story is posted, Slashdot does the zerg thing.

Re:I am not in Tennessee. (2)

DrBoumBoum (926687) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393784)

I am offended. Please go directly to jail.

Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393592)

Fascism. Can you spell it?

Booo! (1)

losttoy (558557) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393594)

Now, i am scared!

I'm getting so tired (3, Insightful)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393596)

of this crap. These 'offensive' communications laws have been in place for decades, over radio, TV, and now the web. At what point is the government going to realize that just as with every other communication media, if one doesn't want to see/hear/view it, one simply needs to change the channel, click the back button, or (heaven forbid) turn the device off and go outside? Leave our radios, television sets and internet alone. I swear, if I hear 'think of the children' as justification for this crap one more time...

Re:I'm getting so tired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393696)

How about they all go fuck themselves?

Apparently, the above sentence is more offensive (clearly at a superficial level) than the gradual erosion of the ordinary person's freedom by an elite few (I should probably avoid saying elite as it seems politicians are generally deficient in all areas other than those which lead one to accumulate personal power and wealth).

Re:I'm getting so tired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393868)

How about they all go fuck themselves?

This is Tennessee... they have their siblings for that.

Re:I'm getting so tired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393986)

15 million people, 5 last names....

Re:I'm getting so tired (1)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393722)

Think of the zombie children. What would happen if their food left?

Re:I'm getting so tired (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393726)

Ok, this is the most nieve point. Its the point of someone who has never been to a break point before. In general yes these laws are pointless and really shouldn't be enforcable, but to say that you can just change the channel is rediculous. Images are hardwired to memory upon site if they are disturbing enough. Audio isn't as bad so not putting up warrnings is asking for someone to get upset. However, the decent thing to do is to just require the user to click I agree or some nonsese before seeing an image that is obviously graphically disturbing.

You can't enforce something like this in my opinion because the deffinition changes from person to person. I personally, prefer to be warrned for medical images even when reading an article on medical issues. Normally, I find an illustration more helpful anyways and in such have blocked like 50 images on wikimedia, but sadly I have to see them before I can there is no flag or catigory that would let me do a preemptive block and unblock once I have decided I might be interested. Most people with your view just want to scream censorship which is just silly when the truth is that these things should be leagle but some level of resonable restraint in preventing accidental viewing is not unresonable to ask for. Because making a goat.ce.cx popup spammer is just blatant cyber assult in my opinion for the average population.

a

Re:I'm getting so tired (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393758)

Your abuse of the English language offends me. My lawyers will be contacting you.

Re:I'm getting so tired (4, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393884)

never been to a break point before

I've been to a breakpoint before. If you don't want to see what's in there, you just step over it rather than stepping into it.

Re:I'm getting so tired (1)

DigitaLunatiC (452925) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393896)

Because making a goat.ce.cx popup spammer is just blatant cyber assult in my opinion for the average population.

I think it would be more reasonable to make unsolicited pop-ups illegal than offensive images. Pop-ups with offensive images would then be handled, as would many scams and sources of malware. This is clearly the better solution.

Re:I'm getting so tired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393978)

The government will not learn this. It is not in the nature of such an organization to learn such a thing.

As population density rises, so does the impact of any given action upon one's neighbors, and hence so does the incentive that each individual has to want to control (and, in most cases, limit) the actions others can take.

Therefore, this problem only gets worse over time. At least, until something causes a significant migration or die-off.

Hollywood (1)

librarybob (1043806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393610)

Well, I guess it's time to invest in G rated movies.

Re:Hollywood (2)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393792)

Don't get too comfortable. My first lawsuit will be over Bambi. Do you know how offended I was when Bambi's mommy got shot? If you're a Disney shareholder, you will find out.

Re:Hollywood (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393840)

Don't get too comfortable. My first lawsuit will be over Bambi. Do you know how offended I was when Bambi's mommy got shot? If you're a Disney shareholder, you will find out.

What about most of YouTube [youtube.com] ?

Constitution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393612)

First off this law is way to generic and non specific, but second, what happened to the freedom of speech?

Re:Constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393832)

Didn't you get the memo? Since when has the constitution mattered to any of 'our' current congressmen?

Re:Constitution (2)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393864)

Duh, this will get slapped down harder than COPA, it has no chance of passing constitutional muster.

Ok.... (3, Interesting)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393616)

So if someone sends me an Image of the bill being signed into law, can I have the Governor locked up? If I lived there, I could argue that the bill intimidates me and causes emotional distress since I don't know if I'll be going to jail because someone found something I sent "offensive".

Should be interesting.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393618)

My first thought agreed with this line from the article:
Volokh points out that a wide variety of images, "pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group," could “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities,” triggering liability. He calls the bill "pretty clearly unconstitutional."

I hope the governor who signed this has his pictures all marked as offensive. :D

Re:Should be interesting.... (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393762)

Exactly. This law is going to exist until someone, anyone, brings it to trial for any reason. Any judge is going to take one look at this and strike it down.

Can we impeach them? (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393902)

> Exactly. This law is going to exist until someone, anyone, brings it to trial for any reason. Any judge is going to take one look at this and strike it down.

Yes.

Did the people who voted for or signed the law ever take an oath to protect, preserve, or defend a Constitution including freedom of speech?

Oaths (3, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393984)

Did the people who voted for or signed the law ever take an oath to protect, preserve, or defend a Constitution including freedom of speech?

Sure they did. As did all members of congress, the executive, and the judiciary. You'll note how well *that* worked.

An oath without enforcement and punishment is utterly worthless unless the oath-giver has profoundly well established ethics that include the concept of personal honor in their foundation.

TN lawmakers find THIS image totally innocent (3, Informative)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393622)

I'm sure some in the Tennessee leg finds this image [fsdn.com] NOT offensive in the least - they'd like to see more of it!

I'm offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393624)

...obviously.

Who is liable? (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393628)

If I link someone to an offensive image (not that I would!), I'm not doing the transmitting. The person hosting it is. Does that mean that the person hosting the image would have to expect/know that someone would be offended?

Re:Who is liable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393780)

You're expecting a legislator to understand a technical subject beyond that ther magic picture bawks done up and showed me summut I dun like.

Hmmm (1, Insightful)

RenHoek (101570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393630)

Let some Tennessee statesman post a graph about projected job loss for the coming years and sue..

In fact I think any imagery related with Republican elections are automatically in. Fox news is out of business in Tennessee as well. :)

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393972)

Contrary any left wing BS will automatically fall in for sure. The big three liberal news media will also not be able to be shown. This law is rediculous and will be used for anything and everything. Lets put all news outlets even cable out of business then where do you get the news... oh that's right the white house!!! LMAO

Let's see what the courts will have to say (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393632)

Legislatures pass laws all the time that cannot be enforced, let's see how quickly the courts strike this one down.

Free speech (5, Funny)

losttoy (558557) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393638)

hey Tennessee, Saudi Arabia called. They want their right to suppress free speech back.

Re:Free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393738)

No kidding this is ridiculous, and a clear violation of the constitution. Anybody can be scared by anything. Some people are emotionally disturbed by a small spider. So now no one is allowed to post pictures of spiders?

Holiday Fun! (5, Funny)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393642)

Oh, can't wait for this come the winter seasons. Nativity scene on the front lawn of a government property should do just nicely. It would probably fall under at least one of the 'frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to' requirements for someone out there. What good is creating a poorly worded cudgel if everyone doesn't get a turn at using it? Heheee.

Re:Holiday Fun! (1)

schlachter (862210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393964)

Yea, lack of separation of church and state has always been disturbing to me. Emotional distress!! I claim distress! Now I have a venue to sue!

What is offensive? (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393650)

Define offensive, because to a lot of people, the sight of politicians going around for votes and kissing babies is offensive. Will those pictures be banned? Stranger danger, beware of politicians!

You have no right to not be offended (5, Insightful)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393656)

It will happen, it's part of life. How you deal with it is what matters. You can either be an adult, suck it up, and move on, or you can be a little crybaby bitch and turn it into a huge legal stink costing taxpayers money.

This is one of those bullshit laws that lawyers love. It doesn't even matter if they win a case on it, they still make off like bandits. How the hell they can even pretend to legislate something as completely subjective as "offense" is beyond me. If there were any real justice this would have been struck down as unconstitutional the moment it became law.

Good job, Tennessee, once again you've made the whole country look like a bunch of backward illiterate morons.

Re:You have no right to not be offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393682)

This is what happens when lawyers become lawmakers.

Re:You have no right to not be offended (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393772)

mod parent insightful - most "representatives" are lawyers. While this gives them the background they need to make good laws it also lets them manipulate the system more effectively. It is the reason US laws are thousands of pages long to say what other nations do in a few paragraphs.

The US would be in so much better shape if laws were made by engineers, business professionals, and coal miners. There is a reason there are so many lawyer jokes in the US.

Re:You have no right to not be offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393958)

This. This is why China is kicking America's ass - China's leadership comes from engineers. People whose training is "using logic to solve problems". Hu Jintao (President of China, name you ought to know) has a degree in hydraulic engineering. Vice President has one in chemical engineering. Premier of the State Council is a geologist. President of the Supreme People's Court was a history teacher (not exactly practical, but still logical).

Now, compare the American leaders. Obama was a lawyer and law teacher. Biden has degrees in history and political science. Secretary of the Treasury has degrees in economics (admittedly useful in that position) and "East Asian studies". If there's ever a major revolution, they're out of a job (assuming they survive). They're dependent on the system staying exactly the same. China goes tits-up, Hu can just change his name, hop on a boat, and get a decent engineering job in any civilized country. Sure, he has personal interests in maintaining power (explains the evil stuff going on there), but they can survive well under any government save total anarchy. And the engineering training makes them think about things logically - they see problem X, and think "what tools can I use to solve this?". That the tools are QBZ-95s and Great Firewalls is irrelevant - they're logical tools to use to solve those particular problems. A lawyer, in contrast, sees problem X and thinks "how can I argue about this?".

America has problems. That's not the issue. Every country has problems. The problem with our problems is that nobody in charge wants to fix them.

Re:You have no right to not be offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393800)

Huh?

You mean it isn't?

I understood that Americans thought that they were the centre of the Universe. Does that make Tenessee the black hole?

Re:You have no right to not be offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36394034)

Good job, Tennessee, once again you've made the whole country look like a bunch of backward illiterate morons.

Nah, they just made all of the citizens of Tennessee look like a bunch of backward illiterate morons. If the rest of the country looks like that, they have only themselves to blame. Just because one state makes a stupid law does not mean that the rest of the states have to follow suit.

Re:You have no right to not be offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36394048)

This is one of those bullshit laws that lawyers love

WTF do you expect when the legislatures are filled with lawyers?

I really wish during elections one could point to someone running and say "He's a lawyer!" and have that disqualify him - not officially but like if he were found out to be a drug addict.

Don't get me wrong, there are many many lawyers who great service for the Republic and for people but there are many who are corrupting the system and turning the legal system into the ball and chain that in the end reduces our Freedoms and makes a mockery of what our country stands for.

I wonder what triggered this law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393688)

Did someone e-mail a state representative a picture of goatse?

Re:I wonder what triggered this law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393900)

Did someone e-mail a state representative a picture of goatse?

Not yet, but the thread's still young.

Of course, it could be worse [funnyjunk.com] (SFW, even SFTennessee, modulo one naughty word.)

The Constitution (0)

maccam (967469) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393694)

Surely this law violates the right to freedom of expression? Will certainly be challenged in the courts.

whaaaat.... (2)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393698)

I know a lot of people who are frightened of clowns, or spiders, or dogs, or women, or men, or.......

Or how bout emotional distress?? what if you post a picture with your new boyfriend/girlfriend, your ex sees that and that causes emotional distress. You could face a fine or go to jail for that?

No worries though, I'm sure this will only apply to things that frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a small select group of people...

Re:whaaaat.... (1)

oracleofbargth (16602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393948)

No worries though, I'm sure this will only apply to things that frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a small select group of people...

Like politicians seeing anything that they disagree with.

On the plus side (2)

Noah69 (1083017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393714)

It would mean the end of 4chan

Re:On the plus side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393768)

It certainly means a lot more people will use tor to use 4chan, presuming the Tennessee courts have any jurisdiction over 4chan, which they shouldn't.

Re:On the plus side (2)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393914)

dude, regardless of what you personally think about it, you should be glad 4chan is there

Re:On the plus side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36394028)

Why? Because it keeps fucktards like you off the normal sites?

Good point actually. Now go back to waiting for some CP flood to satisfy your freakish desires, you basement-dwelling shitstain.

Re:On the plus side (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393924)

It would mean the end of 4chan

Well that certainly puts a different light on things. Way to go Tennessee!

Re:On the plus side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393982)

If 4chan were a place (shudder) I'd rather live there then Tennessee.

So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive. (4, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393724)

And a female wearing a Burka is offensive to others.

Do they think through these laws?

Re:So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393854)

But just think of how great our society would be if we just banned all people.
Truly the ideal utopia!

Re:So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive. (2)

mugurel (1424497) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393950)

So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive. And a female wearing a Burka is offensive to others.

So by logical inference, females are offensive, and thus, by the proposed law, it is not allowed to post images of females online... Tennessee is undermining the very concept of the internet!

Re:So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36394004)

I'm pretty sure that it's going to end up meaning whatever offends typical middle class white Christians will get punished, and if you're not one and it offends you, too bad. I think that's usually how these things work.

It's only a matter of time before some hick uses this to promote a homophobic or islamaphobic agenda.

Re:So a female not wearing a Burka is offensive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36394012)

shes wearing clothes??? OMG The humanity!

need nude pics

What about religious icongraphy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393734)

I've seen pretty gruesome pictures of religious trappings; crowns of thorns peircing someones flesh, open wounds, crucifiction (which is a particularly nasty way to die in itself) -- wouldn't these images be likely to 'frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to' anyone who sees it?

Idiot Governor. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393746)

Just shows even idiots can be elected! No way that will fly in Supreme Court!

To quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393766)

Salman Rushdie: What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393786)

As is the case for many people, I'm afraid of clowns. I'm glad to finally cast off the shadow of terror that hung over me, that I might inadvertently stumble across the image of a clown.

His emal inbox is bound to be hilarious. (1)

Zaphod-AVA (471116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393790)

I'd love to take a quick spin through the images he gets send over the next few weeks.

Well, lets see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393798)

http://news.tn.gov/node/7180

Images of deceased persons. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are very offended by using the names or images of deceased persons, so that's a big violation right there, under the law.

How long until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393806)

...Anonymous or some Anon-related group decides to take this one to task? If anything is asking for teh lulz, this has got to be it.

This seems like a serious troll-bait move, and if any of their state's websites and other servers aren't locked down sufficiently it seems quite predictable what will happen. Do they know what Streisand-effect is? And good luck with enforcement and jurisdiction thing on the internet.

Cue epic trolling of Tennessee in 3... 2...

Unforseen consequences... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393810)

Makes sense. People in Tennessee must be fed up with the offensive display of pictures of Mohammed being posted around the internet...

I'm offended by the image of a $2,500 fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393812)

I'm sure a jury of my peers would agree the imagery of this nonsense-penalty is highly offensive!

Snip! (1)

cbybear (256161) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393824)

Time to cut Tennessee off from the rest of the Internet. How many more stupid laws are they going to pass in that state?

Support California Succession!

Guess we won't have any Christian images (0)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393842)

being posted from Tennesse, then. Or if we do, I presume I can collect somehow?

Holy thought police ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393844)

Is Tennessee that backwards?

The first amendment guarantees the right to offend, and obviously the law can only apply to people who are in Tennessee.

Attention governor Haslam ... you probably have a tiny penis, and aren't smart enough to be writing laws. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Enshrining into law the right not to be offended is as stupid as you can get ... hell, I'm offended by your law. Now go to jail.

Tossed out first case to hit the court (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393848)

Because some tea partier will show an aborted fetus on a placard, or someones Darwin T-shirt will offend some church lady.

Nothing to see here, this wont stand even the weakest constitutional test.

Harassment is already a crime.

Here's who decides (3, Insightful)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393860)

The only people who get to decide what's offensive are the prosecutor or DA (who brings charges) and the jury (if there is one). What you find offensive simply doesn't matter because it will not be brought up in the courtroom.

In reality this will be a handy way of imposing legal costs, fines and jail time on anyone the DA doesn't like or who offends people with influence in that department.

kryst (1)

BlindRobin (768267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393890)

I find all visible and audible representations of religious doctrine highly offensive as I am offended by superstition and magical thinking. Do you think I can bring charges against the purveyors of such doctrine? Of course not, even though they are frauds. We have the right to free expression NOT the right to NOT be offended.

No more Sarah Palin? (2, Funny)

Relayman (1068986) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393898)

You mean I can move to Tennessee and be guaranteed of never seeing Sarah Palin's picture again?

illegal to post images exposing crimes? (1)

arobatino (46791) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393926)

Being convicted of a crime causes emotional distress. Does this mean that posting an image that exposes a crime is illegal? If so, the images would have to be given directly to the police. Can't imagine any problems with that (especially if they're the ones involved).

Adult Industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36393962)

So, seeing how porn is offensive to so many people, and really what can you consider offensive some people might like things others don't. What are they going to do with all the hundreds of complaints they get. This just seems stupid to me.

Jesus H. Christ (1, Insightful)

ALeavitt (636946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393988)

As a Jew, I take offense to any and all depictions of Jesus that depict him as caucasian, aryan, or naked. I suppose it's time to move to Tennessee and start suing the bejesus (pun very much intended) out of everybody.

It's a sign of the times (1)

Wansu (846) | more than 3 years ago | (#36393990)

If laws like this are getting passed, the end is near. The boneheads who put this through are generally running things.

No more FB for Governer Bill Haslam (1)

defaria (741527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36394006)

I guess Governer Bill Haslam must take down his Facebook page because I'd he highly frightened and offended should I come across it! What a fucking moron!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>