Haslam signs law restricting Internet pictures

[mikegideon]

Testing the waters...

[Guest kickstand]

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!

And another decent lawyer could refute it.

Care to respond to the rest of my post?

[Worriedman]

Care to respond to the rest of my post?

Not really, I have made my points, you disagree on some ground, though I am not sure why. The changes to the wording ARE important, the addition of " or displays an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim" changes the scope of 39-17-308 immensely from the original "Communicates with another person". It means if I have no clue that a post may reach an individual on a specific web site, I should have known, as this person that I did not know existed, and I was not trying to reach can now take something I say, or a picture I post and cost me a lot of money. To see it any other way I think, is living with rose colored glasses on. The whole of 39-17-1308 is vastly different from what it was, there had to be intent before.

And another decent lawyer could refute it

Yeah, on my dime, when I did not intend to insult or harass them. I post on a hunting web site, somebody with an agenda cruises in and cost me a bunch of money to defend my 1st Amendment Right. No thanks.

Argue on, I have said my peace, I can promise there is nothing you can say that will change my mind. I have spoken with several attorneys that agree with me, in fact I sought their advise prior to forming my complete opinion. We will just have to see where it goes challenge wise.

[Guest kickstand]

Not really, I have made my points, you disagree on some ground, though I am not sure why. The changes to the wording ARE important, the addition of " or displays an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim" changes the scope of 39-17-308 immensely from the original "Communicates with another person". It means if I have no clue that a post may reach an individual on a specific web site, I should have known, as this person that I did not know existed, and I was not trying to reach can now take something I say, or a picture I post and cost me a lot of money. To see it any other way I think, is living with rose colored glasses on. The whole of 39-17-1308 is vastly different from what it was, there had to be intent before.

No, that's not what it says.... It says "in which their is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim". As you just quoted. If you have no clue, then you don't have a reasonable expectation.

Yeah, on my dime, when I did not intend to insult or harass them. I post on a hunting web site, somebody with an agenda cruises in and cost me a bunch of money to defend my 1st Amendment Right. No thanks.

Once again, no mens rea --> no crime. And you could be charged or attacked with a civil suit for anything.

Argue on, I have said my peace, I can promise there is nothing you can say that will change my mind. I have spoken with several attorneys that agree with me, in fact I sought their advise prior to forming my complete opinion. We will just have to see where it goes challenge wise.

Several lawyers also agree with the ACLU's viewpoint on GA's new law regarding illegal immigrants, I guess that makes them right.... Edited June 22, 2011 by kickstand

[Guest mcgyver210]

It distresses me to see any anti gun signs & I know they are posted to distress me so maybe I can sue them now LOL

[Worriedman]

No, that's not what it says.... It says "in which their is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim". As you just quoted. If you have no clue, then you don't have a reasonable expectation.

No, it says this:

(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.

Once again, no mens rea --> no crime. And you could be charged or attacked with a civil suit for anything.

Au contraire, mon ami, the strategically placed "or"'s preclude the necessity for intent (if you can truly read and understand the English language)

Several lawyers also agree with the ACLU's viewpoint on GA's new law regarding illegal immigrants, I guess that makes them right....

Follow the bouncing ball here:

(a) "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."

(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.

there is no requirement for intent by the placement of the "or", you can either be guilty by intent, or by reasonably having knowledge that someone who might be offended could stumble into a web site you post something in, say they Google "hunting" becasue they hate it so, and your post is on a "hunting" site. Should you know they can navigate to the location? That is all it takes to pin the medal on your chest, or at least put you in position to spend money to defend the fact that did not MEAN to afront their sensibilities.

[wjh2657]

1. This is a violation of constitutional right to free speech.

2. Haslam is a Republican.

3. Rush (may blessings be upon his name) has assured me that no Republican will ever sign legislature depriving me of any of my Constitutional rights. Only Democrats do this.

4. Based on the above, this most assuredly a bald faced lie, probably started by the Obama Mulsim, Communist, Socialist Democratic Liberal press.

5. I don't care what else is printed, I refuse to believe this lie.

[Guest mcgyver210]

Government is MAD on POWER since Sep-11th turning this country into a Socialistic society trying to control all aspects of our lives. They will continue pushing us until they hit the overall stopping point for the majority of true American citizens which I wonder everyday if there is a point when this will happen.

The Constitutional Amendments are not stopping this shift in complete government takeover of all our rights 1st examples are HSA & TSA.

I agree with Worriedman there is lots of potential for abuse of this new farce of a law which is stepping on our right to free speech if you have to be scared as to if you will be sued for posting a pic. Lawyers & citizens frequently find ways to abuse the intent of laws.

[Oh Shoot]

...I agree with Worriedman there is lots of potential for abuse of this new farce of a law which is stepping on our right to free speech if you have to be scared as to if you will be sued for posting a pic. Lawyers & citizens frequently find ways to abuse the intent of laws.

If it creates a new money stream, it will be used/abused, simple as that.

- OS

[Guest mcgyver210]

If it creates a new money stream, it will be used/abused, simple as that.

- OS

I agree 100%.

Just the taxes on my TV/Internet are 26.00 mthly & my local city decided since they needed a new revenue stream they would force us to pay for trash pickup the same rate as you would pay to a for-profit company to do the same job. But that reall is more than they would have gotten from a different tax. They also was able to pocket what they had already built into our property taxes for trash pickup.

If I could only get away with half the financial gimmicks Government scams us with.

[strickj]

As expected, the aclu has filled suit to stop this attack on the 1st.

ACLU to file suit over Tennessee law targeting online harassment » Knoxville News Sentinel

"NASHVILLE - The Tennessee chapter

of the American Civil Liberties Union

announced Tuesday that it will file a

court challenge to a new state law

that makesharassment via the

Internet a crime.

"This new law creates a chilling

effect on expressive political, artistic,

and otherwise lawful speech and

also turns political activists, artists

and others into criminals," said Hedy

Weinberg, executive director of the

ACLU in Tennessee, in a statement."

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

What a silly little law. I dont often find myself in agreement with the ACLU but I might just be this time.....

Cant we get some laws that we actually NEED passed? How about the guns in workplace parking lot bill, or a bill that lets me carry a switchblade knife if I have a HCP. I can carry a GUN which shoots a bullet out at thousands of feet per second, but I cant carry a little switchblade knife 'cause it might be "dangerous." Nooooo cant change those laws but we can waste time passing stupid stuff like this so that we dont cause emotional distress to precious snowflakes......

Please people. Whats up with these "Republicans?" Looks like Haslam might be a RINO.

Edited July 1, 2011 by ArmaDeFuego

[Oh Shoot]

...

Please people. Whats up with these "Republicans?" Looks like Haslam might be a RINO.

Seems to be the only type GOP creature Tennesseans will elect, for some good long while now. Legislature is full of 'em, sent two to the US Senate, etc.

- OS

Edited July 2, 2011 by OhShoot

[Ramjo]

You could post a picture of a bunny rabbit and it would cause some idiot emotional distress in this country.

ROFL!

[Guest NashvegasMatt]

everyones a victim these days... going to the grocery store is emotional distress for me, but I don't need special treatment. Or maybe I do..

[Makiaveli]

One thing that seems to be missing in the debates about accidentally pissing off a PETA member etc etc, is the bit about "maliciously". If you had no malicious intent, then you're safe. Granted I'm sure they could have used existing laws to cover this but I don't see a need to waste more resources in removing it. So looks to me like this is a neutral issue, we lose tax money but at least the ACLU is out some money fighting it as well.

**edit**

Ok I was an idiot and missed the "or". As in you have to have malicious intent or... Thanks to Worriedman for pointing this out.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Makiaveli

[Worriedman]

One thing that seems to be missing in the debates about accidentally pissing off a PETA member etc etc, is the bit about "maliciously". If you had no malicious intent, then you're safe. Granted I'm sure they could have used existing laws to cover this but I don't see a need to waste more resources in removing it. So looks to me like this is a neutral issue, we lose tax money but at least the ACLU is out some money fighting it as well.

Better read the whole Public Chapter:

(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.

[Makiaveli]

You're right, and I noted that above just in case.