Print
Unless you stick to nickjr.com or your ISP's content portal, the Internet can be a little rough around the edges. It is the fertile birthplace of classics like goatse.cx, furries and "Two Girls One Cup," after all. (If you don't know what those are, count yourself lucky and DO NOT Google them.) Now, thanks to the jackass lawmakers in Tennessee who already made it a crime to use your mom's Netflix account, anybody who posts an image on the Internet that's likely to "frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress" can be criminally prosecuted.
Gym memberships use tighter wording than that. The legislation, which Gov. Bill Haslam already signed into law, turns everyone into a potential criminal. Want to put a picture of you and your new girlfriend up on your Facebook page? Don't be surprised when your bitter ex complains and the police come a' knocking. Even if you know someone might be offended by an image and take steps to make the picture unavailable to that person – say, by removing your ex as a Facebook friend – you can still be charged with a crime by one of her buddies if they see the "emotionally distressing" image. That's right, if your ex's mother accidentally stumbles across the photo of you and your new love, she can call the police because it makes her feel a little sad inside. You "should know" better, says Tennessee law makers. Possible sentences for the crime include a $2,500 fine and up to a year in the clink.
Constitutional scholars, freedom advocates, and reasonable people alike have already started foaming at the mouth and politely pointing out that the bill basically gives the First Amendment the middle finger. The way the legislation handles the issuing of court-ordered search warrants for social media accounts may also violate the Fourth Amendment and the "Warshak decision," privacy scholar Julian Sanchez told Ars Technica.
Expect plenty of court battles over this little nugget of totalitarian fun. We're just looking forward to the day that Tennessee lawmakers learn to embrace the Internet, rather than try to wrestle it to the ground and punch it in the crotch.
Comments are closed on this article
mysterymantis
June 10, 2011 at 3:09pm
I don't know if I can even say enough about this. This is just, WTF!
At what point, as a law maker do you just rationalize that there is no guideline for making laws? At what point do you just decide, "F*** the constitution! That's for courts an lawyers anyway!"
All laws should have to pass an immediate constitution check before going into effect. An individual shouldn't have to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees and potential YEARS of court battles to have the RIGHTS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE!!!!!! No law should be placed into effect that violates these rights. It's as easy as assuming that the law is being challenged, and give it to the supreme court to say yes or no, based solely on it's constitutional ability to stand up in court. Of course the flaw there is that you have to assume the Supreme Court will make a good decision, which they have been pretty bad at lately...
TN, if you morons re-elect any of these jerk-0ffs that passed this, then you not only don't deserve your freedom of the 1st amendment, you don't deserve your right to vote, your right to pursue happiness, or even your siding citizenship! There is no way you can rationalize that something that is 100% voluntary on the "victims" end is anyone's fault but there own. The internet, while awesome, is not a necessary for life function! YOU LOG ON YOUR OWN BEHALF! So imagine if all laws worked like this. Laws where a person can simply choose to be a victim, of their own accord, at will. This will most certainly be abused, and most certainly can not sustain itself.
Laws passed for the benefit of morality and safety have destroyed more of our freedoms than any other threat to democracy. Not communism, not fascism, terrorism, or even Walt Disney has ever tore our country apart like the ridiculous domestic thinking that says, "But my feelings got hurt!" Morals do not equal laws, and when you try to force that into practice, you have this.
ShyLinuxGuy
June 10, 2011 at 10:55am
"Emotionally distressing" and "frightening" and all the other BS they claim can be an infinite definition. Hell, some wierdo might scream bloody murder and be scarred for life for seeing a picture of a piece of blank paper.
This BS should trigger the DEA to go do an investigaton or maybe even a drug bust while they're having their "legislative sessions" and catch them in the act becuase they must be *really* stoned.
alabasterdragon
June 10, 2011 at 12:47am
If I live in Tennesse and find pictures of Helen Thomas or President Obama emotionally distressing does that mean the mainstream media will own me billions for flooding me with ofensive images?!?
jnite
June 09, 2011 at 10:25pm
Don't you hate it when you read an article about some organization, political body, juducial system, etc. doing something completely idiotic, and the first thing you think is, "Please don't be from my state. Please don't let these idiots be from my state... Craaap!"
Keith E. Whisman
June 09, 2011 at 5:10pm
Damn, I just googled Two Girls, One Cup and it was something I wish I could unsee. I was trying to eat some chocolate pudding. God why did you guys even mention that crap. You knew we were going to google it.
Caboose
June 10, 2011 at 7:37am
*facepalm*
Really?! REALLY?! Maybe Brad should have posted in big, red, flashing letters to NOT search for them.
But hey, its your own fault! Enjoy your punishment!
Gezzer
June 09, 2011 at 4:41pm
Another example of being politically correct and legislatively moronic.
I'm not a big fan of being PC, often it just ends up being silly, but of course a person should have some sensitivity if their tastes run a bit to the extreme. Sometimes people can get very in your face about some really strange concepts and lifestyles. But to pass a bill so broad that virtually anything can fall under it's scope is an example of attempting to legislate morality which never works.
Maybe a bill giving ISPs/website masters/moderstors the ablity to deal with trully offensive material in a timely manner is more what is needed. Say having the ablity to suspend the site/post till a desicion can be made on how offensive it is. Pretty much what they do now, only framed in a legal manner so everyone knows their rights and obligations, both users and administrators.
Naw that would make too much sense.
draconis123
June 09, 2011 at 1:25pm
I had never heard of goatse before. Now, after seeing a man pull his but apart I really wish I didn't. Thanks Maximumpc.com! lol.
Gezzer
June 09, 2011 at 4:19pm
I hear you. I just saw it about 15 mins ago, the f@cking image is burned into my retinas. I might not be able to go to the can for awhile. <shudder>. The 5th worse thing the net has brought me, and belive me, you don't want to know about the other 4.
Caboose
June 09, 2011 at 4:34pm
You guys are BOTH idiots. Even after the warning, you still looked it up.
Well, I hope you enjoy your punishment!
Gezzer
June 09, 2011 at 4:43pm
Yeah I know. It's kind of like when you pass a site of a major accident. You know you'll get grossed out, but you still have to look.
My bad. :(
JohnnyCNote
June 09, 2011 at 1:04pm
A picture of this bozo appeared on a page I came across and I was sorely offended. So how do I go about prosecuting him for this heinous crime?
Eoraptor
June 09, 2011 at 1:01pm
I am currently accepting donations to fund a colinization of Mars if anyone is interested.
Obviously theres little to no intelligent life left here
bloodgain
June 09, 2011 at 12:47pm
I lived in TN most of my life, and their recent antics have really made me nearly ashamed to admit that.
Luckily, though, the courts in TN aren't nearly as backwards as the legislature. It's unlikely any relatively sane judge in TN would actually convict someone for this, and in a criminal trial you can always get a jury to let you off the hook. Even if you were convicted, most judges would probably sentence with a $1 fine and let you go, it's so stupid.
Anyway, the legislation was likely written to stay in effect even if parts of it were struck down. This clause is probably a target for the courts so they'll ignore the rest of the bill. Then again, the legislature has done some stupid things before.
TerribleToaster
June 09, 2011 at 12:46pm
I see this law falling quickly to the gavel (and the same for the little hulu/netflix fiasco) simply because these are states laws governing primarily interstate and international commerce (since there is the possibility of monetary or otherwise fiscal goods being exchanged), an arena that belongs to the federal government, thus meaning that these laws are unconstitutional. The only ways for these laws to be held constitutional is if the federal courts hold that these follow "The Silence of Congress", or in layman's terms, that Congress remains silent in this matter as a means of opening up regulation to state legislature (intended or otherwise) or that these laws improve upon the current "federal position and laws" of said areas.
Both of which, I see as unlikely to hold water in court.
axiomatic
June 09, 2011 at 12:34pm
Why put non-violent criminals in jail where they become a financial burden on the state when you could FINE THE HELL OUT OF THEM and turn this in a a money maker for the state?
Dumbest idea ever.
Ghok
June 09, 2011 at 12:29pm
Obviously, if someone makes images that try to hurt or harrass someone, that's not good... but we already have laws against harrassment. If I were to draw an offensive picture and put it on my property, that'd be okay, but if I put it on my webpage that would be bad?
Brad Chacos
June 09, 2011 at 12:46pm
I agree that harrassment shouldn't be tolerated, while still minding the First Amendment guidelines, of course. It's the slippery wording, on both this and the previously passed 'Theft of Electronic Services' bill, that make them so potentially damaging. It's almost like nobody's checking the fine print down there in Nashville, because even an attorney fresh out of law school should have caught the flagrant First Amendment-violating flaws with in this newest bill, and the open-to-interpretation language used in both pieces of legislation.
... in my humble, untrained opinion, of course!
Biceps
June 09, 2011 at 4:44pm
The only did this because elementary school is offensive in Tennessee. 5 bucks says rudimentary education is the next thing they outlaw in Tennessee, right before they ban "Thinkin' too hard-like'.
Holly Golightly
June 09, 2011 at 12:16pm
I actually see this as a good law. If I stumple upon some accidental porn, I want them to go to jail. As an internet user, I should not have to see disturbing images... But sometimes I am forced to see it. This could be justice well served.
Biceps
June 09, 2011 at 4:53pm
Holly, I find your profile pic offensive - it is just too cutesy, and I don't feel it represents your communist ideals very well. Because your profile picture offends me, I do believe I'm calling the Tennessee State Police now. Goodbye for a while now :) Have fun in the lockup!
Broad and vague laws like this aren't ever designed to protect anyone, Holly, they are designed to penalize free and creative people (like you and me). You should probably check the books, because I bet at one time or another, they outlawed 'talkin' like a commie' in Tennessee, too.
My point is, when a new law is proposed, you have to look not just at how YOU want it to be used, but how the most evil, despicable person in the country will use that law to their own benefit and to your detriment. Why, you ask? Because those are the kinds of people who go into politics, and they are the ones making the laws. This one stinks to high heaven.
Gezzer
June 09, 2011 at 4:49pm
This is anything but a good law, even if you want some sort of safegaurd when you surf.
All this law will do is tie up the courts with frivolous cases. Where said plaintiff decides a site dedicated to the defendents worn out socks is offensive and producing emotional distress in them since they suffer from sockaphobia.
Caboose
June 09, 2011 at 1:56pm
Ya no, this is a total crock of shit! Anyone could say that any image is offensive and disturbs them greatly.
I suffer from Anatidaephobia (Fear that you are being watched by a duck), and you know what, Aflak's website scares the shit out of me. I'm going to have them sued for this!
(I don't really suffer from Anatidaephobia but you get the idea)
Caboose
June 09, 2011 at 1:55pm
Ya no, this is a total crock of shit! Anyone could say that any image is offensive and disturbs them greatly.
I suffer from Anatidaephobia (Fear that you are being watched by a duck), and you know what, Aflak's website scares the shit out of me. I'm going to have them sued for this!
(I don't really suffer from Anatidaephobia but you get the idea)
_Spooky
June 09, 2011 at 1:13pm
Aside from a malware (your fault) or spam (probably your fault)-- I think you'd rarely be able to "stumble upon accidental porn".
Now don't get me wrong, I can see maybe a rare instance where some jerk, on what is thought to be a safe forum/img board, posts something adult or inappropriate. When this happens usually an admin or moderator will punish them accordingly. And if the image is illegal I feel more severe actions should be taken. But if it's just an adult image that you didn't want to see-- grow up, that doesn't warrant jail time.
No, you shouldn't have to see disturbing images. If you're careful with your browsing habits you probably won't. If you do, be mature and understand that it's an inevitable marginal risk.
US_Ranger
June 09, 2011 at 12:56pm
So because you don't like something, you're ok with people going to jail for it? This is EXACTLY the problem with people in western countries (mainly the US) these days. Here's a word of advice Holly: It's not all about you. No one cares if YOU get offended, most of us just care that our 1st amendment rights are protected. In the famous words of South Park...."If you don't like it, you can giiiiiiiiiiit out!"
bloodgain
June 09, 2011 at 12:41pm
If you stumble upon some accidental porn (huh?), you feel like somebody should serve time for that? What if you accidentally walk in on your grandpa naked? That's fairly disturbing. Should he go to jail?
It's becoming difficult to determine if you are very bad at sarcasm or a troll, Holly. I can't imagine you're serious, so those are the only two options left.
tornato7
June 09, 2011 at 12:41pm
You're an idiot. You can just as easily pick up a porno magazine accedentally. It's YOUR fault. You don't have to use the internet if you don't want to accedentally find some disturbing images. You're never forced to see it, and it's not going to kill you or ruin your life if you accedentally see a disturbing image. You can buy some parental protection tools if you can't stand the thought of seeing anything you may not like.
big_montana
June 09, 2011 at 12:39pm
Sorry, but porn is legal, and is covered by the 1st amendment. Youknow the one that gives you freedom of basically everything. If you do not wants those choices or freedom, then there is alwasy the middle east, where none of these choices exist or China who censors everything. No one forces you to see a porn image if you click on it, yes, there is clickware, spyware, and fake google searches that will cause it to popup, but with the proper security in place on your computer, that will not happen. If it does, close it, no one is forcing you to look at it.
MrBlueCheese
June 09, 2011 at 8:43pm
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean we should do it.
Slavery was legal, but it was still morally wrong.
Women were considered "lesser" then men and that was legal.
The government can make up some rediculous laws and this is one of them.
However, i can see where Holly is coming from. There are people who don't want to look at porn, so why are we bombared with this stuff? Even a "safe" google search isn't always "safe"
Its pretty rediculous that there are all of these unsafe sites out there and people with good morals have to nagvigate through them in order to be "safe"
To Holly: Just curious, what are your thoughts on a .XXX top level domin (search XXX domain on Maximum PC's search engine) and forcing the porn industry to use them? Then a simple filter can safely block this out.
Caboose
June 10, 2011 at 7:35am
I guess you'd better not watch TV, movies, listen to music, or leave your house. Sex sells. Its been that way for decades, and once you enter the world of media, you'll be bombarded with sexy and sometimes boarderline pornographic content.
Beer companies had better have their laywers on standby for the first lawsuit as they are really bad for using sex to sell their products.
Same goes for clothing companies.
It is up to YOU to determine what is acceptable and not acceptable for YOU. Not anyone else. And unless you're link hopping, searching for something that can be taken in a different meaning, or diving in to the deep deep pages of a search result, the chances of stumbing across a porn site are slim. Besides, most of them indicate the name or content in the search result, this allowing you to avoid it altogether.
MrBlueCheese
June 10, 2011 at 12:19pm
In opposition to what you know, there are "clean" TV shows, movies, music, etc. Even though "sex sells" doesn't make it right. Children are getting more and more exposed to this type of filth that many of them are sexually active earlier and earlier in their lives.
And don't get me started on web searching, even if you do "strict" searches, inappropriate material still comes up in the results.
Lastly, don't get me started on "what is acceptable and not acceptable to you" stuff. If i go onto the internet, there's no "opt-in" or "opt-out" programs, so even if i wanted to "opt-out" i can't.
Caboose
June 10, 2011 at 12:26pm
If you find it offensive, just don't look at it. Plain and simple.
Unless you're the kind of person that clicks on every link that appears!
someuid
June 09, 2011 at 12:11pm
Yeah, cause heaven forbid if you manage to evade getting your salary/wages cut, your hours cut, your benefits cut, crime of all sorts, failing infrastructure, and mortgage fraud, a potentially disturbing image might just finally break your back.
Stupid politicians are obviiously living to comfortable of a life to think they should be wasting their time on such trivial legislation when they have an entire state to run.
