Discussion in 'Freedom of Expression' started by Circus Fag, Jun 8, 2011.
Apparently so, if you're a lawmaker in Tennessee. I blame the uranium in their drinking water.
Changed the title of the thread. The law say nothing about "offensive."
Well now that we have debated on what the problem with this law is, how about we all make wagers on which offensive images lulzfags will flood the most onto websites popular for Tennessee residents and politicians?
I nominate the candidates:
Now the joke.
There can no longer be any porn stars from Tennessee. The images are certainly emotionally distressing to their parents.
You know that in Tennessee, when they have dances and someone says "Time for a hoe down to start!," all the women hit the floor!
As if Tennessee had any porn stars to begin with.
Still missing the point. They're both speech. There's nothing about death threats that make them not acts of expression, of speech. And that's why the issue is now and always has been about where to draw the line and limit free speech.
View attachment Challenge_Accepted_You_Laugh_You_Lose_s329x270_125
I am amazed how fail you are. It makes this fag sad
A death threat is a threat, often made anonymously, by one person or a group of people to kill another person or groups of people. These threats are usually designed to intimidate victims in order to manipulate their behavior, thus a death threat is a form of coercion. For example, a death threat could be used to dissuade a public figure from pursuing a criminal investigation or an advocacy campaign.
"hate speech".In many jurisdictions, death threats are a criminal offense as deemed as "hate speech" . Death threats are often covered by coercion statutes.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".
Tell me if you want moar lessons.
He's engaging in a semantics battle.
really you're having two different arguments.
If prior history of weird Tennessee Internet related laws serve as an example, the "offending" images don't need to be hosted on a Tennessee based server, but only be viewable (and deemed "offensive") on any web client within the state. In the past, Tennessee has been known to seek extradition of pron site hosts from California and other states to stand trial in Tennessee because their pron could (gasp) be viewed by Tennessee residents that requested it.
Semantics? Like this :
It's a false distinction. Also, I'm always right.
I've had the unfortunate experience of meeting a few people from Tennessee who were extremely offensive.
Maybe we should ask Kim Belotte?
welcome to tenessee: Home of intolerant cunts
Incontinent Student Bodies. Google it. Or better yet, ED it.
Good example. The courts decided that Sparrow's actions would not be reasonably considered to be harassment or intimidation or stalking.
What was SCOTUS say regarding the Westboro Baptist Church?
Do you not have google?
This..makes me lose faith in the justice system.
It should not.
The WBC have the right to free speech. Just because you might not agree with the message that they are promoting, or the platform they choose to do it - everyone has a right to free speech. SCOTUS made the right decision 100%.
well..they are considered as a hate group.
We tend to take a rather extremist stance on what speech we allow in the US. No sarcasm or anything, we are a bit unusual compared to similar countries when it comes to what is and isn't allowed in public discourse. Personally I like it, but it has it's obvious drawbacks (ie WBC).
Why? The protection of the law applies to every person, no matter how reprehensible. Those scumbags have the right to utter their filth. They do not infringe anyone's rights by so doing. In fact, by demonstrating the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their own cause, they discredit it. If you invoked the power of the government to punish them for speaking their (extremely tiny) minds, you would simply create the impression that they were persecuted victims.
I prefer the American system, where we allow people to prove they are hateful idiots, by exposing themselves in the marketplace of ideas. I will note that their vile ideas are rapidly decreasing in value, and even things like gay marriage, once thought unthinkable, are being adopted in state after state. Clearly, allowing a rag-tag mob of inbred bigots to traverse the country spewing evil thoughts has not harmed the country. In fact, it has made homophobes look as stupid as they are. Even other homophobes scramble to distance themselves from these loons, who expose their philosophy for what it is.
If you can bankrupt the Phelps nutjobs, you could also criminally prosecute every 4chan nerd who trolls with nigger jokes just to annoy people, even if they weren't even a racist.
Not going into the whole westboro, right of assembly and free speech thing but back to the law in Tennessee. As herro pointed out earlier it is way to vague and should only pointed at images that are sent to an individual instead of simply veiwable by the person. That is the issue with this law, that it is too vague and could be used as a form of censorship. If someone posts images that are considered emotionally distressing, (say the many pictures found on rotten.com) it could be argued under that law to be harassing to the individuals who view them. Should it be of course not but it could be. The law is vague and tries to make that any images viewed from the internet in Tennessee if found to be distressing or threatening against the law. Intent must be a part of law and not just location of the viewer. The law should be adapted to cover only images intentionally sent to the individual in question and even than it has to stand up in court that the intent was there to cause distress.
The law does have a clause that the images it covers must not serve "any other legitmate purpose." Not that this makes it much better, but there is at least that caveat.
What happens if someone suffers distress by looking an the author of the law's face? What happens if /b/ uploads images to Tennessee government computers? What happens if someone files federal civil rights charges against the dickhead who thinks he can make the Internet go away with bogus laws?
It opens up for a lot of courtroom dialogue and culture clashes, that is for sure. This can give judges a lot of headaches in the future, with the potential of wasting the court's time and money. Especially if this gets abused or overused as much as pro freedom of expression and free speech advocates are predicting it will.
For the first time Herro; I agree with you.
Can't beleive i am saying this but Herro is right in a lot of ways when it comes to this law. I see it tying up alot of court time with bogus bs cause some little girls feelings got hurt over facebook though. I understand trying to get the laws of the land to catch up with technology but this law doesn't pass muster. they need to re write it so it makes sense before this costs the taxpayers and innocent victims of this law alot of money
This coming from a state which allows guns in bars...
I love carrying a gun into a bar. Nobody fucks with me.
I think this is something we should worry about, as Anons it seems to fit right into what we hate
There's another thread about this already. Please search before you post.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!