Tennessee ban jpegs? - GoFuckYourself.com

livexxx · 06-08-2011, 03:49 PM

I hear that place has banned images that can cause distress or emotional problems

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...l-distress.ars

how do you americans avoid jurisdiction? what country is best to register your domains and have your paxum accounts in?

Quentin · 06-08-2011, 04:19 PM

I'm not too worried about this one, at all.

Here's why.

For the reading-challenged, the final line of Prof. Volokh's post is the only one that really matters:

Quote:

Pretty clearly unconstitutional, it seems to me

suesheboy · 06-08-2011, 04:45 PM

Illegal now for teachers to answers students questions about homosexuality here too.

Falabala · 06-08-2011, 04:53 PM

Oh tennessee, you so silly.

mountainmiester · 06-08-2011, 04:54 PM

1st amendment problems? You bet. Opening the door for even more censorship...you can count on it. They already have a clear path of 'adding to' legislation.

Since no one really gives a rats ass about Tennessee, there isn't much alarm but what if this was in your state?

twistyneck · 06-08-2011, 05:13 PM

Fucking hillbillies.

fris · 06-08-2011, 05:14 PM

sounds fair

Sly · 06-08-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainmiester

1st amendment problems? You bet. Opening the door for even more censorship...you can count on it. They already have a clear path of 'adding to' legislation.

Since no one really gives a rats ass about Tennessee, there isn't much alarm but what if this was in your state?

Tennessee has as many people as Arizona.

harvey · 06-08-2011, 06:55 PM

this post gave me emotional distress

V_RocKs · 06-08-2011, 07:30 PM

There is a reason I don't travel in those parts of the US. People are kinda ignorant.. Sorry, John Rich.

marlboroack · 06-08-2011, 07:38 PM

When I'm old, the internet isn't going to be fun anymore.

GregE · 06-08-2011, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falabala

Oh tennessee, you so silly.

There's a reason why they call places like that flyover country.

bronco67 · 06-08-2011, 08:26 PM

I call bullshit. They don't have the internet in Tennessee. Who watches the shit heap while they go online?

GatorB · 06-08-2011, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainmiester

1st amendment problems? You bet. Opening the door for even more censorship...you can count on it. They already have a clear path of 'adding to' legislation.

Since no one really gives a rats ass about Tennessee, there isn't much alarm but what if this was in your state?

I live in Tennessee. This is what you get when you let republicans control everything. what happened to the party of LESS government interference in people's lives?

Let's see we have high unemployment and are #1 state for meth labs and our governor and state legislature is worried about jpegs and Netflix passwords.

DBS.US · 06-08-2011, 08:51 PM

onwebcam · 06-08-2011, 09:30 PM

Fuck'em good luck trying to prosecute that law and they can suck my jurisDICKtion

garce · 06-09-2011, 12:32 AM

Better off setting up a business in China or Russia.

scarlettcontent · 06-09-2011, 04:32 AM

omg just crazy

CyberHustler · 06-09-2011, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livexxx

I hear that place has banned images that can cause distress or emotional problems

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...l-distress.ars

how do you americans avoid jurisdiction? what country is best to register your domains and have your paxum accounts in?

Stay on one subject muh fucka!

Barry-xlovecam · 06-09-2011, 05:59 AM

Tennessee home of the The Scopes Trial?formally known as The State of Tennessee v. Scopes and informally known as the Scopes Monkey Trial.

If this law is objectionable, it would be in its application to non criminal behavior.

If this law is applied in a strict scope of its legislative intent it would be upheld under the 1st Amendment.

The Overbreath Doctrine would not apply if the conviction was in a case of images used in Criminal Harassment (a criminal offense).

Quote:

"[A]N ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Paft3, relative to the offense of harassment. ...

http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/107/pub/pc0362.pdf

PR_Glen · 06-09-2011, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainmiester

1st amendment problems? You bet. Opening the door for even more censorship...you can count on it. They already have a clear path of 'adding to' legislation.

Since no one really gives a rats ass about Tennessee, there isn't much alarm but what if this was in your state?

Tennessee is about 100x more interesting than Arizona will ever be so I don't understand why you would say such a thing...

No, i don't live there.

spazlabz · 06-09-2011, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBS.US

special note here: That is NOT a hillbilly

Tom_PM · 06-09-2011, 07:27 AM

"Warning, the internet was never and will never be intended or suitable for babies like you. Use at your own risk."

When you visit a webpage, you are REQUESTING to be served the content located at the URL. Period. Don't like *******? Stop visiting sites that might show *******. Block all known image types in your browser. How about not using the internet? How about taking your thumb out of your mouth and growing up?

I'm going to sue because light from the sun bounced off particles in my screen and into my eyes causing an image to take shape and it offended me. You'll pay for this... you'll all pay.

spazlabz · 06-09-2011, 08:08 AM

I just got the newsletter from my fav t-shirt company and they are pissed about this law. I dont think this one will stand up to the first court challenge

CaptainHowdy · 06-09-2011, 09:48 AM

GregE · 06-09-2011, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

I live in Tennessee. This is what you get when you let republicans control everything. what happened to the party of LESS government interference in people's lives?

When it comes to sex, and anything even remotely related to the same, the Republicans have never ever been about less government regulation.

Quite the opposite actually.

Gonzo Modeling · 06-09-2011, 10:14 AM

wat...........

Quentin · 06-09-2011, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

If this law is applied in a strict scope of its legislative intent it would be upheld under the 1st Amendment.
]

With all due respect, I'm going to stick with UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh's analysis of this one.

Volokh's take is as follows:

Quote:

Friday, a new Tennessee law was changed to provide (new material italicized):

(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally:

(4) 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 by [by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication] 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

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

So the law now applies not just to one-to-one communication, but to people?s posting images on their own Facebook pages, on their Web sites, and in other places if (1) they are acting ?without legitimate purpose,? (2) they cause emotional distress, and (3) they intend to cause emotional distress or know or reasonably should know that their action will cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities. So,

1. If you?re posting a picture of someone in an embarrassing situation ? not at all limited to, say, sexually themed pictures or illegally taken pictures ? you?re likely a criminal unless the prosecutor, judge, or jury concludes that you had a ?legitimate purpose.?
2. Likewise, if you post an image intended to distress some religious, political, ethnic, racial, etc. group, you too can be sent to jail if governments decisionmaker thinks your purpose wasn?t ?legitimate.? Nothing in the law requires that the picture be of the ?victim,? only that it be distressing to the ?victim.?
3. The same is true even if you didn?t intend to distress those people, but reasonably should have known that the material ? say, pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group ? would ?cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities.?
4. And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.

Pretty clearly unconstitutional, it seems to me.

While my agreement adds nothing to the value of his opinion (as I'm not a constitutional law practitioner or First Amendment scholar) I'm with Volokh on this one.

JamesGw · 06-09-2011, 11:59 AM

Unconstitutional. It'd never stand in federal court.

D Ghost · 06-09-2011, 02:06 PM

"If you think that sounds unconstitutional, you're not alone. In a blog post, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out just how broad the legislation is. The law doesn't require that the picture be of the "victim," nor would the government need to prove that you intended the image to be distressing. 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."

06-08-2011, 04:45 PM	#3
suesheboy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: FL - TN/NC Posts: 5,211	Illegal now for teachers to answers students questions about homosexuality here too. __________________ Adult Web Site Domain Names For Sale Adult Sex Toy Domain Names For Sale Tantric Delights, Sex Toys Blog, Tantric Sex Toys

06-08-2011, 04:54 PM	#5
mountainmiester Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arizona Posts: 509	1st amendment problems? You bet. Opening the door for even more censorship...you can count on it. They already have a clear path of 'adding to' legislation. Since no one really gives a rats ass about Tennessee, there isn't much alarm but what if this was in your state? __________________ Randall Crockett LIMELIGHT NETWORKS [email protected]

06-08-2011, 05:14 PM	#7
fris Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 55,219	sounds fair __________________ Since 1999: 69 Adult Industry awards for Best Hosting Company and professional excellence. WP Stuff

06-08-2011, 06:55 PM	#9
harvey Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: 127.0.0.1 Posts: 9,266	this post gave me emotional distress __________________ This post is endorsed by CIA, KGB, MI6, the Mafia, Illuminati, Kim Jong Il, Worldwide Ninjas Association, Klingon Empire and lolcats. Don't mess around with it, just accept it and embrace the truth

06-08-2011, 08:26 PM	#13
bronco67 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 29,035	I call bullshit. They don't have the internet in Tennessee. Who watches the shit heap while they go online? __________________

06-08-2011, 03:49 PM	#1
livexxx Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2005 Location: UK Posts: 1,201	Tennessee ban jpegs? I hear that place has banned images that can cause distress or emotional problems http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...l-distress.ars how do you americans avoid jurisdiction? what country is best to register your domains and have your paxum accounts in?

06-08-2011, 04:53 PM	#4
Falabala Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 61	Oh tennessee, you so silly.

06-08-2011, 05:13 PM	#6
twistyneck So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hanging by the neck until dead. Posts: 4,660	Fucking hillbillies.

06-08-2011, 07:30 PM	#10
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,391	There is a reason I don't travel in those parts of the US. People are kinda ignorant.. Sorry, John Rich.

06-08-2011, 07:38 PM	#11
marlboroack So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ☣ Posts: 9,327	When I'm old, the internet isn't going to be fun anymore.

06-08-2011, 08:51 PM	#15
DBS.US Geo Cities Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: North Captiva Island, Florida USA Posts: 11,828	__________________ Make a Free Chaturbate White Label site in 34 minutes and be making money tonight

06-08-2011, 09:30 PM	#16
onwebcam Fake Nick 1.0 Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Rent free, your head Posts: 27,652	Fuck'em good luck trying to prosecute that law and they can suck my jurisDICKtion __________________ PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF..... ██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

06-09-2011, 12:32 AM	#17
garce Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 7,103	Better off setting up a business in China or Russia.

06-09-2011, 04:32 AM	#18
scarlettcontent www.scarlettcontent.net Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Pleiades Posts: 6,031	omg just crazy __________________ Scarlett Content - Adult Content Provider - High Quality Adult Stock Content for your Websites, Mobile Media and Print. Over 3 Million Images (14,000 photo sets) over 5000 Videos - Many Niches, US-2257, Awesome Prices. Over 40 years in the adult industry. [email protected] Follow us on twitter.

06-09-2011, 07:27 AM	#23
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	"Warning, the internet was never and will never be intended or suitable for babies like you. Use at your own risk." When you visit a webpage, you are REQUESTING to be served the content located at the URL. Period. Don't like *****? Stop visiting sites that might show *****. Block all known image types in your browser. How about not using the internet? How about taking your thumb out of your mouth and growing up? I'm going to sue because light from the sun bounced off particles in my screen and into my eyes causing an image to take shape and it offended me. You'll pay for this... you'll all pay. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

06-09-2011, 08:08 AM	#24
spazlabz Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Kentucky Posts: 6,548	I just got the newsletter from my fav t-shirt company and they are pissed about this law. I dont think this one will stand up to the first court challenge

06-09-2011, 09:48 AM	#25
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 92,989	__________________ FLASH SALE INSANITY! deal with a 100% Trusted Seller Buy Traffic Spots on a High-Quality Network 1 Year or Lifetime — That’s Right, Until the Internet Explodes!

06-09-2011, 10:14 AM	#27
Gonzo Modeling So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 465	wat...........

06-09-2011, 11:59 AM	#29
JamesGw Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,237	Unconstitutional. It'd never stand in federal court. __________________ Giggles.com has a huge selection of sex toys. Need backlinks? Ask to guest post on our adult blog.

06-09-2011, 02:06 PM	#30
D Ghost null Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 9,820	"If you think that sounds unconstitutional, you're not alone. In a blog post, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out just how broad the legislation is. The law doesn't require that the picture be of the "victim," nor would the government need to prove that you intended the image to be distressing. 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."