Haslam signs law restricting Internet pictures

[NextExit]

well you all wanted Haslem. What an out of touch tool.

Not me. He didn't get my vote.

But since it has come to this, I think this forum needs to be accessed by registered users only. The general public might stumble upon this forum and become offended and distressed by most of our avatars. All these guns!!!! :P

[Oh Shoot]

Not me. He didn't get my vote.

But since it has come to this, I think this forum needs to be accessed by registered users only. The general public might stumble upon this forum and become offended and distressed by most of our avatars. All these guns!!!! :P

Just have everyone start flooding the TN Attorney General with criminal complaints whenever they are offended and distressed by anything in cyberspace.

- OS

[7dogguy]

Haslam signs law restricting Internet pictures | Nashville Business Journal

Interesting statute. I agree fully with the analysis in the last sentence.

Thanks for the link and you answered something I wondered - would this pass a challenge based on the First Amendment. I also agree it's a crazy and waste of time law, but I reckon part of a politicians daily work is to see who can be the most asinine.

[Guest mikedwood]

well you all wanted Haslem. What an out of touch tool.

Hey don't blame me! I always vote for Carl Two Feathers Whitaker (Well 2006 and 2010) and will as long as he keeps running. Some people say I'm wasting my vote but each year the numbers for the 3rd party candidates grows just a little, eventually it will be noticed. I might be 200 by then but....

[leroy]

Haven't seen much news today. We're not appearing as national laughingstock on any shows yet except Red Eye?

- OS

This one will give ya a little bit of entertainment on this subject. It's one of my favorite blogs: Moonbattery: Totalitarianism Gets a Foothold in Tennessee

Enjoy.

leroy

[greenego]

Hey don't blame me! I always vote for Carl Two Feathers Whitaker (Well 2006 and 2010) and will as long as he keeps running. Some people say I'm wasting my vote but each year the numbers for the 3rd party candidates grows just a little, eventually it will be noticed. I might be 200 by then but....

I also voted for Mr. Two Feathers. I couldn't handle Haslam or McWherter

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I rarely watch comedy channel, but Daily Show and the Colbert guy will surely have fun at our expense on this one.

[RobertNashville]

Thanks for the link and you answered something I wondered - would this pass a challenge based on the First Amendment. I also agree it's a crazy and waste of time law, but I reckon part of a politicians daily work is to see who can be the most asinine.

Frankly, I can't see how this can pass a Constitutional test...the right of freedom of speech, which I believe has been decided includes "images", doesn't guarantee ANYONE the right to not be offended or even incensed. In fact, often, it is the speech that the most offensive that most needs the protection of the first amendment.

Of course, someone has to spend the $$$ to challenge this stupid law which of course will wast even more taxpayer $$$ spend by the stat in defending the state's position.

Imagine for a moment that you are a politician...now imagine you are stupid as a piece of cow dung...but than I repeat myself.

Edited June 11, 2011 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

I rarely watch comedy channel, but Daily Show and the Colbert guy will surely have fun at our expense on this one.

With the exception of their very rare anti-gun stabs, I love those guys. Last week was "weener" week. Those two shows expose more idiots for what they are, than anything on TV. There IS some bias, but at least they back it up well.

[gregintenn]

This is what we get for electing Dana Carvey Governer.

[bajabuc]

well you all wanted Haslem. What an out of touch tool.

Not me...old 5 buck a gallon of gas let me know his politics were for sale on a cash only basis.

[Guest kickstand]

I suggest you folks actually read TCA 39-17-308 and HB 300, and not just swallow what the media tells you.

[macville]

I suggest you folks actually read TCA 39-17-308 and HB 300, and not just swallow what the media tells you.

I tried to, but it didn't make a lot of sense.

[Worriedman]

I suggest you folks actually read TCA 39-17-308 and HB 300, and not just swallow what the media tells you.

I have, it is not good.

(4) Communicates with another person by any method described in subdivision (a)(1), without legitimate purpose:

(A) (i) With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or

(ii) In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and

( As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.

Methods of communication referenced in subdivision (a) (1) are: text messaging, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail or Internet services.

The Local DA takes a shine to you being in the Cross Bar Motel, and you post a picture or text on the net, you can spend a lot of money to stay out of jail.

[Guest kickstand]

First, that was already in TCA 39-17-308, so why take aim at HB 300/PC 362?

Second, the intent to harass your target must exist to be held liable for the crime. This law does not make everyone who posts a "scary" image on the internet open to legitimate prosecution.

[Guest bkelm18]

First, that was already in TCA 39-17-308, so why take aim at HB 300/PC 362?

Second, the intent to harass your target must exist to be held liable for the crime. This law does not make everyone who posts a "scary" image on the internet open to legitimate prosecution.

May I ask why you are passionately defending this piece of legislation?

[Guest kickstand]

Because people are twisting it around.

[Worriedman]

First, that was already in TCA 39-17-308, so why take aim at HB 300/PC 362?

Second, the intent to harass your target must exist to be held liable for the crime. This law does not make everyone who posts a "scary" image on the internet open to legitimate prosecution.

Here are the changes to TCA 39-17-1308:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-308(a)(4), is amended by

deleting the language "Communicates with another person" and by substituting instead the

language "Communicates with another person or transmits or displays an image in a manner in

which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim."

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-308, is amended by adding the

following as new appropriately designated subsection:

U As used in this section:

( 1) "Electronic communications service" means any transfer of signs,

signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in

whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical

system;

(2) "Image" includes, but is not limited to, a visual depiction, video clip or

photograph of another person;

(3) "Log files" mean computer-generated lists that contain various types

of information regarding the activities of a computer, including, but not limited to,

time of access to certain records, processes running on a computer or the usage

of certain computer resources; and

(4) "Social network" means any online community of people who share

interests and activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and

activities of others, and which provides ways for users to interact.

Per these, not just pictures, but text as well can be construed to be offensive, these being the operative words: "Electronic communications service" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system;".

Now, the local DA can be led by someone on a web site to push charges for nearly anything. It is over reaching in it's breadth. And from some of the lawyers I have spoken with, flies in the face of the Constitution.

[Guest kickstand]

You ignored both of the points I made, and I was simply using images as an example, I understand that the law encompasses other things.

Edited June 20, 2011 by kickstand

[Worriedman]

You ignored both of the points I made, and I was simply using images as an example, I understand that the law encompasses other things. Focus on the first two sentences of my previous post.

Not ignoring anything. If I post something, or any one else does for that matter, something on a web page, and a politically connected individual takes umbrage, then I am put to the task of defending a position.

Were Politicians honest, and had they the best interest of the People at heart, this would be of less concern. This can, and will be turned against Liberty if allowed to stand unaltered.

[Guest kickstand]

Not ignoring anything. If I post something, or any one else does for that matter, something on a web page, and a politically connected individual takes umbrage, then I am put to the task of defending a position.

No, you are not put in a compromising position. The ACT and INTENT have to be present for a crime to exist.

Were Politicians honest, and had they the best interest of the People at heart, this would be of less concern. This can, and will be turned against Liberty if allowed to stand unaltered.

How? You are knit-picking phrases from the law, not looking at the whole thing. And you still did not address my points..... You just keep repeating that this stomps all over our rights, and fail to say how.

Edited June 20, 2011 by kickstand

[Worriedman]

From Article 1 Section 19 of the Tennessee Declaration of Rights " The free communication of thoughts and opinions, is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."

First, the "new" Public Chapter was unnecessary, the older version of TCA dealt with intentional Harassment, this new Public Chapter lays out the possibility that by posting a thought, image or picture, the individual doing so MIGHT cause distress, puts that individual at risk of being charged under the new law.

TCA 39-17-308(a)(4)

(A)(ii)In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and

( As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.

Any individual who post a picture of a fish his grand child caught, a brace of birds taken on a hunt, a deer harvested, anywhere on the Internet, knowing that PETA has access to the Internet, can and (most likely will) be charged under this law, as any person should know that such posting would cause emotional distress to a PETA adherent. A text description of the actions required to achieve the possibility of such a picture might just as well be grounds for charges under this Act as well.

Conviction under the Chapter might be difficult to achieve, but the threat (nuisance value) of reaction to what should be a Right is problematic.

Will owners and operators of web sites be found complicit in such harassment? Should they police their forums as they are facilitating the display of an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim?

I would challenge you kickstand, to lay out any benefit this new change to the harassment clause of the TCA will bring?

Edited June 20, 2011 by Worriedman

[Guest kickstand]

From Article 1 Section 19 of the Tennessee Declaration of Rights " The free communication of thoughts and opinions, is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."

First, the "new" Public Chapter was unnecessary, the older version of TCA dealt with intentional Harassment, this new Public Chapter lays out the possibility that by posting a thought, image or picture, the individual doing so MIGHT cause distress, puts that individual at risk of being charged under the new law.

Any individual who post a picture of a fish his grand child caught, a brace of birds taken on a hunt, a deer harvested, anywhere on the Internet, knowing that PETA has access to the Internet, can and (most likely will) be charged under this law, as any person should know that such posting would cause emotional distress to a PETA adherent. A text description of the actions required to achieve the possibility of such a picture might just as well be grounds for charges under this Act as well.

"A person commits an offense who intentionally: 4) Communicates with another person [...], without legitimate purpose." And then what you quoted.

If you are posting the fishing picture for family/friends to see, a PETA person is not "a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities", so the law would not apply.

Conviction under the Chapter might be difficult to achieve, but the threat (nuisance value) of reaction to what should be a Right is problematic.

Will owners and operators of web sites be found complicit in such harassment? Should they police their forums as they are facilitating the display of an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim?

HB 300 provides a statutory defense for service providers... But most or all already have user agreements that release them from your behavior. It's obviously not Google's fault if I send a threatening email via Gmail.

I would challenge you kickstand, to lay out any benefit this new change to the harassment clause of the TCA will bring?

It's a waste of time. HB 300 does the above mentioned, and lays out redundant search/seizure protections. I still do not understand why HB 300 was ever brought up, the already standing version of TCA 39-17-308 is what has everyone flustered. They could have worded it better, but the same can be said for a lot of laws.

ETA - Just pulled up the 07-08 version of TCA 39-17-308, and I do not see any benefit of the current version over it. The old law still covered all the bases, and this is just a rewording. Legislatures feel like they have to constantly re-invent the wheel, instead of focusing on the important issues facing the state/country. Politicians suck.

Edited June 20, 2011 by kickstand

[Worriedman]

A "similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities" is anybody that is on that web site that you posted to, you must be aware that anyone with a computer MIGHT access said site. A decent lawyer can make a fortune off this tripe!

[Guest SUNTZU]

Testing the waters...