Tennessee governer stomping on the constitution.

[nlsme]

Tenn. law bans posting images that "cause emotional distress"
All I can say is, has this guy even read the constitution?

 

[Knewz]

So basically if you are in Tenn. don't post anything or go to jail.

 

[Dark Jedi]

Good thing Rep Wiener got his screw up in before this law was passed

 

[Jceinc]

He should go to jail for posting his wife's pic on his websites ... I'm suing for "emotional distress"

 

[noah way]

Let me guess if Tennessee is a red state or blue state ...

 

[mike114]

Tenn. law bans posting images that "cause emotional distress"
All I can say is, has this guy even read the constitution?

Which Constitution is the governor violating??

 

[nlsme]

Which Constitution is the governor violating??

The one for the United States of America

 

[gvillager]

Today it's pictures, tomorrow it's words!

Basically it's a criminal offense if you hurt someones feelings, even if it's unintentional.

 

[mike114]

The one for the United States of America

Which federal agency will be enforcing this law? You are arguing the wrong point. You need to check the TN Constitution and see if there is a conflict.

Don't get me wrong, on the surface I don't support this law from what I know about it, but it doesn't violate the US Constitution.

 

[Sak01]

Serious question:If freedom of expression is so sacrosanct, how come you're not allowed to walk around naked? And to make it more extreme, what about walking outside school gates like that?

I'm just interested in knowing how that's reconciled.

 

[copestag]

I whole heartedly agree...... in fact I would pose this question ........ is the rights of the many greater than the rights of the individual at any point?

if we truly want to believe in the constitution then the rights of an individual are equal to the rights of 310M........ since their rights are not somehow combined but simply individual rights that coincide

therefore I think anything whatsoever that offends to the point of violating the constitutional rights (which is by the way open to individual interpretation) any individual in any way shape or form should be illegal and punishable by death

this law is a step in the right direction...... but what they should have done was just make it illegal to post any images whatsoever....... after all you cannot give me 1 single example of an image that doesnt cause emotional distress to at least 1 individual somewhere

for that matter it should be illegal to communicate in any fashion....... every word spoken by every person on the planet causes emotional distress to at least 1 person somewhere...... any word typed....... every picture.... etc etc etc........ also being seen...... seriously....... I know everyone has seen someone who offended them by something...... the way they dressed.... the color of their hair...... their teeth....... something ..... each and every one of us has some physical characteristic that someone somewhere finds emotionally distressing or offensive......... so we should ban all human interaction........... down with the collective

this is what happens when we condone this crybaby PC society........ its all the freakin 'timeout' parents and its not fair if you make me cry attitudes to blame

and if that offends you...... TOO BAD..... write to the govt.... they can outlaw me

 

[gvillager]

Which federal agency will be enforcing this law? You are arguing the wrong point. You need to check the TN Constitution and see if there is a conflict.

Don't get me wrong, on the surface I don't support this law from what I know about it, but it doesn't violate the US Constitution.

Your missing the point. State law must conform with federal law. Someone could challenge this law in federal court, if the judge rules that its unconstitutional then the law is thrown out.

 

[mike114]

Your missing the point. State law must conform with federal law. Someone could challenge this law in federal court, if the judge rules that its unconstitutional then the law is thrown out.

I'm sorry, you are incorrect. First of all the feds have no Constitutional authority to tell TN what to do in this case. We have been programmed to believe that the Supreme Court has any say in what laws states pass. Unless it's specifically stated in the Constitution, the states have every right to pass laws based on their OWN constitutions.

The US Constitution restricts the federal gov't, not state governments, hence the 10th Amendment.

You are correct about your last statement unfortunately. Federal judges have stripped the States of their authority by making those decisions. It's high time the States told the feds to go pound sand. This is a states rights issue and should be settled by state courts and the TN Supreme Court.

 

[noah way]

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain provisions of the First Amendment

 

[gvillager]

I'm sorry, you are incorrect. First of all the feds have no Constitutional authority to tell TN what to do in this case. We have been programmed to believe that the Supreme Court has any say in what laws states pass. Unless it's specifically stated in the Constitution, the states have every right to pass laws based on their OWN constitutions.

Article 3, Section 1 of the US Constitution

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The US Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to resolve controversies between States and it's citizens.

The US Constitution restricts the federal gov't, not state governments, hence the 10th Amendment.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment prohibits States from enacting laws that violate the US Constitution.

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The citizens of the State of Tennessee have the right to petition the US Supreme Court. If they were to convince the Court that images are an extension of freedom of speech or press then the law would be ruled unconstitutional and it would be overturned.

 

[gvillager]

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain provisions of the First Amendment

 

[bbrosen]

this is really geared more towards someone stalking, threatening and harassing someone and sending violent photos meant to scare them in their stalking and harassment. So even tho the photo may not be illegal in itself, sending it posting it geared towards harassment or stalking makes it a crime. Yes its a slippery slope but the government is actually trying to keep up with changing technology for once. Its a tough call, but if implemented carefully might work, but like a lot of laws over time, it may morph into something it was never intended.

 

[Knewz]

but like a lot of laws over time, it may morph into something it was never intended.

Like......overcrowded jails mixed with serial rapist and posted-a-naked-pic-of-my-ex-girlfriend-on-the-internet-ers

 

[nlsme]

this is really geared more towards someone stalking, threatening and harassing someone and sending violent photos meant to scare them in their stalking and harassment. So even tho the photo may not be illegal in itself, sending it posting it geared towards harassment or stalking makes it a crime. Yes its a slippery slope but the government is actually trying to keep up with changing technology for once. Its a tough call, but if implemented carefully might work, but like a lot of laws over time, it may morph into something it was never intended.

Then it should be worded as such. The words "stalker" or "harrasment" are not even in the bill. It is only "offensive images".