Tennessee ban jpegs?
 

I hear that place has banned images that can cause distress or emotional problems

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...l-distress.ars

how do you americans avoid jurisdiction? what country is best to register your domains and have your paxum accounts in?

I'm not too worried about this one, at all.

Here's why.

For the reading-challenged, the final line of Prof. Volokh's post is the only one that really matters:

Illegal now for teachers to answers students questions about homosexuality here too.

Oh tennessee, you so silly.

1st amendment problems? You bet. Opening the door for even more censorship...you can count on it. They already have a clear path of 'adding to' legislation.

Since no one really gives a rats ass about Tennessee, there isn't much alarm but what if this was in your state?

Fucking hillbillies.

sounds fair

Tennessee has as many people as Arizona.

this post gave me emotional distress :Oh crap

There is a reason I don't travel in those parts of the US. People are kinda ignorant.. Sorry, John Rich.

When I'm old, the internet isn't going to be fun anymore.

There's a reason why they call places like that flyover country.

I call bullshit. They don't have the internet in Tennessee. Who watches the shit heap while they go online?

I live in Tennessee. This is what you get when you let republicans control everything. what happened to the party of LESS government interference in people's lives?

Let's see we have high unemployment and are #1 state for meth labs and our governor and state legislature is worried about jpegs and Netflix passwords.

Fuck'em good luck trying to prosecute that law and they can suck my jurisDICKtion

Better off setting up a business in China or Russia.

omg just crazy

Tennessee is about 100x more interesting than Arizona will ever be so I don't understand why you would say such a thing...

No, i don't live there.

special note here: That is NOT a hillbilly :1orglaugh

"Warning, the internet was never and will never be intended or suitable for babies like you. Use at your own risk."

When you visit a webpage, you are REQUESTING to be served the content located at the URL. Period. Don't like *******? Stop visiting sites that might show *******. Block all known image types in your browser. How about not using the internet? How about taking your thumb out of your mouth and growing up?

I'm going to sue because light from the sun bounced off particles in my screen and into my eyes causing an image to take shape and it offended me. You'll pay for this... you'll all pay. :mad:

I just got the newsletter from my fav t-shirt company and they are pissed about this law. I dont think this one will stand up to the first court challenge

When it comes to sex, and anything even remotely related to the same, the Republicans have never ever been about less government regulation.

Quite the opposite actually.

wat...........

With all due respect, I'm going to stick with UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh's analysis of this one. :winkwink:

Volokh's take is as follows:

While my agreement adds nothing to the value of his opinion (as I'm not a constitutional law practitioner or First Amendment scholar) I'm with Volokh on this one.

Unconstitutional. It'd never stand in federal court.

"If you think that sounds unconstitutional, you're not alone. In a blog post, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out just how broad the legislation is. The law doesn't require that the picture be of the "victim," nor would the government need to prove that you intended the image to be distressing. Volokh points out that a wide variety of images, "pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group," could “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities,” triggering liability. He calls the bill "pretty clearly unconstitutional."