Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Crazy Crap Posting This Image Might Be Criminal, According to Tweaked State Harassment Law
Posted by Brantley Hargrove on Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:34 PM
It's insanely broad, vague and amounts to a frontal assault on constitutional protections of free speech. The bill, authored by Sens. Bill Ketron, Andy Berke, Beverly Marrero and the usual cast of House goons, including Reps. Curry Todd, Terri Lynn Weaver and Tony Shipley, requires only that the image causes "emotional distress" and was posted "without legitimate purpose." What the hell does that mean? And who gets decide what is and isn't legitimate? The courts, I suppose.
According to the bill's language, the image doesn't even have to be some unflattering photo of the "victim" in this case. It simply has to distress them, meaning publishing images that provoke based on race, religion or politics could also be illegal.
Take, for instance, this mugshot of Zach Wamp, who was arrested in 1983 for disorderly conduct. The image is no doubt emotionally distressing to him, and I know this. I'm trying to make a point, but you could argue that I am acting "without legitimate purpose." That could mean I just broke the law.
Comments (23)
Showing 1-23 of 23
Ketron is completely crazycakes, so legislative overreaching on his part suprises me not. But Berke and Marrero are relatively intelligent and *not* completely crazycakes, so they ought to know better.
like
dislike
I had forgetten that offering free mustache rides was still outlawed in '83. Intrepid reportage, Hargrove.
Does that mean the zach wamp duckface pics are off limits: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_50kvyPfr50k/TBvJ…
Hargrove,
Isn't causing "emotional distress" the argument that is used on college campuses by the left to justify prohibiting free speech by conservatives? Similarly, isn't it the rationale for all sorts of workplace prohibitions on language and images?
The fact that darlings of the left like Senators Marrero and Berke are on this bill suggests exactly that, not a right-wing conspiracy.
I abhor all this sort of legislation because it is all a threat to free speech. How about you?
Who said anything about a conspiracy? Or party politics, for that matter? I'm all for free speech, Rogers, and I'll defend to the death the right of silly clownshoes like you to espouse the predictable "but-the-left-does-too" arguments on this blog.
"It's insanely broad, vague and amounts to a frontal assault on constitutional protections of free speech."
That would be the first sentence of the second paragraph.
"Who said anything about a conspiracy?"
I was going to ask the same thing. This seems like bipartisan stupidity to me. And Andy Berke is a lawyer, for crying out loud.
Hargrove,
Maybe I read more into "the usual cast of House goons" than you intended.
Are you saying that the left doesn't bear considerable responsibility for such threats to free speech? "Emotional distress" as a justification for restricting free speech is hardly a conservative theme.
As for "but-the-left-does-too" arguments," if you would demonstrate a modicum of intellectual consistency, I would not have to remind you that some of us conservatives have been warning about the dangers of "emotional distress" laws on free speech.
First, let’s not pretend that a state law is equivalent to a campus rule, especially in light of the fact that courts have consistently concluded that campus administrators can and should act in loco parentis. Second, campus rules do not prohibit “free speech by conservatives,” unless you consider racist, sexist, and homophobic speech inherently and essentially conservative.
Mark, I think the whole "universities stifling conservatives" stuff is pretty over-stated. I haven't seen anywhere near the amount of evidence for this as all the talk on the right would have you believe. That said, I used to waste my time reading right-wing blogs just to see the crazy comments and several times I tried to post a dissent or a link that disproved what the author or his readers stated only to see the comment get moderated out of existence. And I know I am not the only one. I've heard stories about people calling talk radio jocks like Limbaugh and not getting through his call screener. Apparently Limbaugh doesn't like people disagreeing with him on-air. So, on balance, in my opinion, the left is far more tolerant for free speech than the right is. Just ask Newt Gingrich.
If I were the rabid Wampster, that gun-fellating former Congresscritter, I would also be distressed to know that my origins as a pudgy frat-boy with a merde-eating grin in my mug shot were still available for all to see.
But hey, that's just one price we pay for living in the age of the internets. That, and being preached to by Miz Marky Mark (though never face-to-face).
Any time. Anywhere.
ArtPress,
Free speech needs to be defended everywhere. I totally agree with the criticism of this new Tennessee law. Hargrove, however, seems to think that the threat is more one-sided than the facts demonstrate. You cannot be for free speech for only some and you cannot tolerate your friends' efforts to suppress it.
Chris, you should pay more attention to the issue. It is far more pervasive than you think. A few year ago Vanderbilt tried to block a speech by David Horowitz after the anti-free speech lefties got offended. The school should have publicly rebuked the protestors for their attack on free speech.
Small "d," even your fellow Democrats have rejected your paranoid rantings. There was no widespread voter fraud in 2008 or 2010. There is nothing to debate. But I will make you a deal, you get the Tennessee Democratic Party to fess up to all the vote stealing and illegal voting that they organized over the last 50 years and I will debate you on the subject of elections. After all, it was the Democrats not the Republicans who controlled elections in this state in that period.
"My free speech oppression is bigger than your free speech oppression."
"No, *my* free speech oppression is bigger than *your* free speech oppression."
Boys, boys. Is it always about dick size with you?
Min,
I think you and Small "d" need to get together. Maybe a long trip on a railroad train or a visit to the Rockies or a visit to Cape Canaveral. You could read Freud to each other.
I watched that bill advance and wondered why it didn't get more attention. What were y'all doing?
Emotional distress" as a justification for restricting free speech is hardly a conservative theme.
I am emotionally distressed by this idiot who keeps spamming it.
But since Mark Rogers opposes any limits(unless it's about sex or gay people) I'd ask that the spammer send all that garbage to you.
Sorry about all this spam, Pith denizens. It annoys the piss out of me. I think it's an automated thing. F your shoes, Christian Louboutin. And F you.
Mark Rogers sure does cling to this partisan conspiracy, doesn't he? I don't see one. I see lawmakers writing sloppy legislation with unintended consequences. I also see a Senate Judiciary Committee membership that should be uniformly canned.
Miz Mark,
Well we're getting closer to initiating a spinal transplant for you, now aren't we? As you are no doubt aware (unless your flying monkey trainer keeps you locked in one of your closets most of the time), the TN Democratic Party was quite vocal in stating that the flip-flop by the TN Flying Monkey Party on the TN Voter Confidence Act smelled to high heaven. For their efforts, they were accused by you monkeys and your country club cub reporter colleagues of injecting partisanship into the safe elections debate here, when the coordinated flip-flop of Republicans on that good government bill had already done that quite clearly. (As Cue-Ball Mumpower said on the steps of our capitol in late 2008: "We-all were for safe elections in Tennessee until we took control of the legislature under highly suspicious circumstances. Now we-all are agin' 'em. Nothing to see here -- move along now, y'hear.")
In addition, "Too Tall" Tre and his simian staff were taken to court in Nashville and ordered to stop their foot-dragging on TVCA implementation. That was also a major news item for months and you should know that -- again if they let you be uncloseted at least occasionally. Unfortunately, Tre's platform shoes were just heavy enough for his foot-dragging to last until you monkeys could eviserate the TVCA. You know that, I know that -- the entire state knows that. You're just not man enough to defend it in public. In truth, none of y'all are.
As for getting the Democratic party to 'fess up to anything, the reason I call myself small "d" here is that I am for everyone's vote to count as it was cast, regardless of whether their politics agree with mine. As I have already told you (and everyone else including the two TBI agents that "Too Tall" sent in an unsuccessful effort to intimidate me), I applaud the Battle of Athens because it involved WWII veterans in McMinn county taking on a corrupt political machine. It mattered not a whit to me that the corrupt machine was Democratic, affiliated with another corrupt Democratic machine in Memphis (Boss Crump). I am here to fight against election fraud no matter who commits it. These days, it's you reich-wing flying monkeys and your fraud-facilitating machines that deserve to be hung by the necks until dead. I see that you're still unwilling to debate me in public if that might be your well-deserved outcome.
But tell you what -- you find corrupt Democrats stealing elections in Tennessee and I'll happily provide the hemp rope to string them up too. In fact, if you can invent a "way-back" machine, I'd be happy to go back in time and string 'em up then too. In my own county (Maury), it would have taken a very big tree and a very stout rope to string up our local corrupt Democratic judge/election thief/drug king-pin. Fortunately, Satan has already called him home so we needn't bother.
Tell you what (part 2) -- I won't require that you get TN Republicans to stop gloating that it's their turn to steal our elections (which they are not shy about doing) AND I won't require that you get Tre Hargett to stop making an o-fey fool of himself in public by prancing around on his platforms AND I also won't require that you get the sun to rise in the west before I agree to debate you. All I ask from you is that you find the spine or the balls or the courage of your convictions to show up -- any time, anywhere -- to debate me on the issue of free, fair (cheap, fast) and verifiable elections and why 90%+ of Tennesseans want 'em and you flying monkeys don't. If there was any substance to you and your cage-mates, you'd do that. Your continued cowardice speaks for itself, and it speaks volumes.
BTW, I'd be happy to take a vacation with anyone -- here or elsewhere -- who's got more balls than you. Min seems to fit the bill, as does my seven year old grand-niece. Unlike you, it doesn't suck to be them.
Come on now, Marky Mark. Grow a pair and man up. That seems to be pretty standard advice for you and your ilk, but advice that seems mighty hard for y'all to follow. It's also very likely the only hard thing about all y'all, though (thankfully) I'm not privy to what y'all Twit to each other in the heat of the night. For all I know, all y'all might already be weiners, though my guess is that you're more likely just corrupt country club Vienna sausages in a mighty smelly small can.
@Mark Rogers: leading off with a statement such as "...Isn't causing "emotional distress" the argument that is used on college campuses by the left to justify prohibiting free speech by conservatives?" leaves me with the impression that you have never been on a college campus as a student and that you are just blowing this nonsense out of your ass.
I thought GAY OLE PARTY was for smaller less intrusive governmemt...just another lie!
kosh,
Where did I propose such limits? You are making things up.
Hargrove,
Repeating your misunderstandings does not make them any more true. I am not 'blaming' anyone. I am explaining that both the left and the right have a tendency to threaten free speech to further their goals. That is why I distrust ideologues on both sides.
Elmer,
I would be happy to provide you with information on examples of attacks on free speech and other outrages on college campuses. Most have been directed at conservative students but others are broader threats to the rights of students.
