Another Dumb Law - Illegal Now In Tennessee To Post An Image On The Web That Will "cause Emotional Distress".

[yas]

How long will it be until this law is smacked down as unconstitutional?Who gets to choose what(and who) suffers 'emotional distress'?This is a recipe for censorship.http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/tenn-law-bans-posting-images-that-lead to-emotional-distress.ars(Suppose I post a image of my daughter when she was a child, that embarrasses her because she had red hair then. Am I breaking the law?Puhleeeeez...

[Seosamh]

That does appear to be the interpretation of the writer yes. I doubt it was the intent of the original lawmakers to leave the door open for they tyranny of the offended, even though.   TheLightWorks 31 months ago

[Carlie]

Certainly, if you show that cute naked picture of her on a blanket when she was a baby that might cause her emotional distress as an adult, and will the police knock on your door? Anthony Weiner's picture on the internet may qualify. It's a dumb law.   MaryAnn 30 months ago

[Brynly]

I was being facetious. Any of the symbols I mentioned will cause some people to experience emotional distress. A rainbow symbol will disturb the homophobe. A Moslem flag will disturb many Christians. I cannot imagine a law that can protect everyone from everything that might be disturbing to them.   Bill1939 30 months ago

[Chaim]

Sounds like the way some in AV view anything someone they don't agree with says. They turn them in to try to get them banned. Same thing.   Directmale 30 months ago

[Dekel]

> Sounds like the way some in AV view anything someone they don't agree with says. They turn them in to try to get them banned. Same thing. Don't want to get banned? Follow the rules. People are allowed to report things against ToS. If someone gets banned, it is because they choose to ignore the warnings and continue behaviors that they KNOW are against the ToS. Then they blame others for what they, themselves, brought on.   TurboB 30 months ago

[Heathclyf]

Link?   Poppet! 31 months ago

[Egidius]

it's going to be overturned as unconstitutional, I'd lay 90% odds.   MrItty 31 months ago

[cleirach70]

What about a person who feels emotional distress seeing the ocean because he broke up with his girlfriend on the beach? A person seeing the picture of a dog like the one she once had might feel emotional distress. That law is wholly out of context with reality and the brainiac who came up with it, along with the brainiacs who voted it in need their heads first removed from their derrieres, then promptly examined then given new jobs. I guess once they have courts overloaded with law suits over emotional distress over pictures which are taking time away from real cases, they'll begin to realize the error or their ways. Hope they have fun.   Skylight 31 months ago

[pitney]

never mind--found it!   Poppet! 31 months ago