It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Law bans Internet images that cause 'emotional distress' (Updated to Include Bill)

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:02 PM
How are they going to enforce this? Are they thinking they can station agents all around the border of Tenn to put a clamp in the tubes as the offensive pictures come in?

It's ridiculous! I guess people will call in when they are offended and someone will make a judgment as to whether the image is offensive or not and then arrest the person who put it up there... if they live in Tennessee...

I'm really just speechless. (three paragraphs later)

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:04 PM
Images of politicians cause me emotional distress. Solicitations for money from via email from policians really causes me extreme distress.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:05 PM

Originally posted by AshleyD
Trying to find some more info. A couple of questions I have:

1). How will they enforce this. Not in reference to fines and jail time that they already explain. But do they force sites to remove images? Does the government block them? Do they have some sort of 'blur' censor they use?

2). Who is the judge to determine something is offensive? Is it just a case of someone can submit a complaint claiming offense? Can some little cry baby just report anything they deem offensive?

3). How is this remotely constitutional?

4). Will it go further than Tennessee or will the supreme court nix this nonsense?


1: They will take each person who is offended by this, attach a shock collar to them, and teach them not to click on things that might emotionally upset them. Cost covered by a new govt program that runs off of a new tax.
The people who post or write hurtful things will have to serve time in jail.. in a scheme to get federal tax dollars to expand current jails with reprogramming centers for those who are not sensitive to others widdle feelings and need to learn to be PC.

2. The loudest drama queen will determine whats offensive.. probably a fundie. A fundie judge.. we are talking about Tn here afterall.

3. Its not. Its stupid. A waste of time. A waste of money.

4. Nope, it will be adopted by all nanny states happily and people will cheer.. and that new tax will cover the expense of monitoring and the people they have to train to attach the shock collar and press the button creating jobs and the economy will recover.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:10 PM

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by The Djin

Haha. Yes, but in turn, I can report your post to them and claim it is causing me 'emotional distress.'

I see severe potential for this abuse.

Ah you got me there.

This world is gone craaazy, luckily I'm of an age that is closer to leaving it than coming into it and to be honest I'll be glad to go it's a mare.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:17 PM
I guess I need to remove all pictures of my in-laws from the web... they definitely cause emotional distress.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:18 PM
Absolute fairy tale.
First off does anyone have a bill number?
The articles all say the Guv signed it into law but not much else, I find this hard to believe.
Second there is a GAPING constitutional breach here, what constitutes disturbing?
Does anyone really think Tennesee can control the interwebs?
This is fairy tale and if not, I call for the trial and hanging of the Guv for treason in time of war.
Personally, I think someone or someones are attempting to stir unrest in the US.
We hold all of the cards, all we have to do is not give them up.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:21 PM
Yeah, good luck with that Tennessee. How pray tell are you going to uphold such a law? It's downright idiotic and whoever put this law up for a vote must have been dropped one too many times as a child. Sorry if that offends, but this is just down right stupid. The internet cannot be censored. Doesn't matter how hard you try. The people will either A) Find someway else to do what they're doing or B) Just not give a damn.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:36 PM
Yep, urban legend.
Look here if you need to see for yourself.
Nothing mentioned on their website so....Fairy tale debunked.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by g146541

Not so fast.
I just found it:

So looks like it's NOT a fairy tale as far as I can tell (but I might be wrong).

I'll add that link to the OP so we can dissect it if needed.

ETA: It LOOKS like an anti-harassment bill but included in the bill, it extends to posting images on the internet intended to harass or cause emotional distress.

So I am *assuming* that means things like a rapist sending images of rape to his rape victim. Or an ex creating a blog to attack a former lover. Not necessarily some blogger who posts an image of Mohammad or what not. But the bill itself makes no specifications. Looking into it.
edit on 6/9/2011 by AshleyD because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:17 PM
well there goes all the front pages of the
main stream news web sites posting
Obama's picture. That upsets a lot of folks.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How are they going to enforce this? Are they thinking they can station agents all around the border of Tenn to put a clamp in the tubes as the offensive pictures come in?

No, they are gonna cherry pick which cases
they want to pursue just exactly like they
do with illegal immigrants.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:26 PM
Looks like this is what is creating the uproar:

(1) "Electronic communications service" means any transfer of signs,
signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, ¡"adio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photoopticalsystem;
(2) "lmage" includes, but is noi limited to, a visual depiction, video clip or
photograph of another person;
(3) "Log files" mean computer-generated lists that contain various types
of information regarding the activities of a computer, including, but not limited to,time of access to certa¡n records, processes running on a computer or the usageof certain computer resources; and
(4) "Social network" means any online community of people who share
interests and activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and
activities of others, and which provides ways for users to interaci.

Then the rest generally talks about the penalties for violations.

It really does sound to me like you can be prosecuted for posting something that offends someone. I would hope this would get overturned by a higher court.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:58 PM
1) Get a group of atheists / non-christians to all pay in for a good lawyer

2) Claim that sales of the Bible online in TN are emotionally draining / distressful / against their values or whatever

3) have lawyer push this law to the limits

4) ..... See what judge does

5) Profit? Get bibles banned from being sold online.

This is all comical as well since its in the bible belt. It would definitely not fly though but at least it will make a big deal of how ridiculous this law is.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:28 PM
This is just another ploy by the anti-Internet people. What is some one is afraid of cats, does that mean all cat pictures will be pulled from the net? Any one remember back when computer screens were just green text and no pictures? Is that what they want? We are losing the Internet bit by bit, bite by bite. It was fun while it lasted but I do see a day when the net will be for business use only with no chat rooms, not blogs, no ATS, not nothing but just business use. Not even sure if we will still have email in the future. We may all have to go back to snail mail.I seen the birth of the Internet and I fear I will live to see its death as well.

You might as well get out the camera and take some pictures of your computer and save and print out some screen shots. That way some day you will have something to show the grandkids when you are sitting in your rocking chair on the front porch and telling stories of the old days.

You="I remember back when we had the Internet. We could talking to one other all over the world and share pictures and information at will"
Grandkid="What was the Internet?"

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:31 PM
This is just stupid. No one MAKES you distressed, you CHOOSE to feel it. No image MAKES you sick, or angry, you CHOOSE to feel those things. To suggest people can't put anything up that might offend puts all the power into the hands o the poster and takes away all of the power of the person who was supposedly offended.

Why does everyone insist on mining a new level at the bottom of the victim-hood barrel. There is nothing that offends me, nothing, not one single thing, nada. Why? Because I simply choose not to be offended as is my right. If I choose to be offended at anything, that is my problem as I have chosen.

The real reason behind all of these efforts is to get people to give up their power, and they are all happy to do it because looking at this or that offends them as they have been taught to react this way without thinking.

A thought occurred to me. The cross is something that people choose not to be offended by, even though it is a symbol of a ritual murder. Yet, the site of a dead body, one that died of natural causes, offends (by choice of course) many of the very same people who worship the sign of the most famous murder in recorded time. Odd.

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:18 PM
reply to post by AshleyD

Seems to be the real deal, it was buried in there amongst a mountain of numbers and letters.
Well, I'm no lawyer but it looks real, and if so any involved should be hung.
The wording seems a bit tooooo wide and could catch even the most minute of offenders.
I do agree the bible offends me so I will call Tennesee tomorrow.
I think I will also troll facebook and report anyone in Tenn.

Hey, it all offends me.

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:19 AM
Headline says "Updated to include Bill"

I thought it meant Bill Clinton. No more Bill Clinton pictures.

Scares potencial Interns all over the world.

That's what I thought it meant.

I'll read the full articles from now on.

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:50 AM
So, in other words, TN just outlawed the entire internet.

Nice try, but you'll never defeat the Porn Industry.

On a side note, I find Facebook highly insulting to my intelligence. Can we please have it banned?

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by AnteBellum

I wonder if they are going to let creditors call people anymore, because all they do is upset people!

edit on 6/9/2011 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)

Ahhh we can only wish!! Star for you for the laugh!!

Seriously though, there are way to many people that are overly sensitive to everything. This is going to bring out the best *cough worse*
, in the morality police too...'oh noes that picture of that statue shows side boob, everybody run...'. What I don't understand is why these overly sensitive people don't just CHOOSE to stop looking at that stuff. I don't like lizards, I think they are disgusting and a friend of ours has a HUGE scaly something or other (blegh yucky lol). I don't make him put it away or cover it up, I just make the CHOICE to leave it the hell alone and not walk in that part of the house. Personally I think it's because they are confused about their own issues and are ashamed of the fact that they want to look at this stuff.

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:09 AM
Porn upsets people.... it's not gonna be taken down.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in