Tennessee ban jpegs? - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

livexxx

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2005

Posts: 1201
Share

Post
#1

Tennessee ban jpegs?

06-08-2011, 02:49 PM

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?

http://www.webcamalerts.com for auto tweets for web cam operators
Tags: None
Quentin

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 1280
Share

Post
#2

06-08-2011, 03:19 PM

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:

Pretty clearly unconstitutional, it seems to me

Q. Boyer
Comment
suesheboy

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 5211
Share

Post
#3

06-08-2011, 03:45 PM

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

Adult Web Site Domain Names For Sale
Adult Sex Toy Domain Names For Sale
Tantric Delights, Sex Toys Blog, Tantric Sex Toys
Comment
Falabala

Registered User

Join Date: May 2011

Posts: 61
Share

Post
#4

06-08-2011, 03:53 PM

Oh tennessee, you so silly.

ICQ - 605736748
Comment
mountainmiester

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2002

Posts: 509
Share

Post
#5

06-08-2011, 03:54 PM

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?

Randall Crockett
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS
[email protected]
Comment
twistyneck

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Jan 2002

Posts: 4660
Share

Post
#6

06-08-2011, 04:13 PM

Fucking hillbillies.
Comment
fris

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 55699
Share

Post
#7

06-08-2011, 04:14 PM

sounds fair

Since 1999: 69 Adult Industry awards for Best Hosting Company and professional excellence.
Comment
Sly

Let's do some business!

Join Date: Sep 2004

Posts: 31377
Share

Post
#8

06-08-2011, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by mountainmiester

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?

Tennessee has as many people as Arizona.

Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted

Windows VPS now available
Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc.
Click here for more details.
Comment
harvey

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2001

Posts: 9266
Share

Post
#9

06-08-2011, 05:55 PM

this post gave me emotional distress

This post is endorsed by CIA, KGB, MI6, the Mafia, Illuminati, Kim Jong Il, Worldwide Ninjas Association, Klingon Empire and lolcats. Don't mess around with it, just accept it and embrace the truth
Comment
V_RocKs

Damn Right I Kiss Ass!

Join Date: Nov 2003

Posts: 32449
Share

Post
#10

06-08-2011, 06:30 PM

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

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Jul 2010

Posts: 9327
Share

Post
#11

06-08-2011, 06:38 PM

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

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2004

Posts: 2704
Share

Post
#12

06-08-2011, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Falabala

Oh tennessee, you so silly.

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

50/50 lifetime payout - EXCLUSIVE CONTENT - CCBill
CLiCK here for your Bun Beating Dollars.
Comment
bronco67

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Dec 2006

Posts: 29032
Share

Post
#13

06-08-2011, 07:26 PM

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

The Demon & 12clicks

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 18208
Share

Post
#14

06-08-2011, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by mountainmiester

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?

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.
Comment
DBS.US

Geo Cities

Join Date: Aug 2003

Posts: 11843
Share

Post
#15

06-08-2011, 07:51 PM

Have an unused domain? Make a Free Chaturbate White Label site and be making money tonight
Comment
onwebcam

Fake Nick 1.0

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 27689
Share

Post
#16

06-08-2011, 08:30 PM

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

PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.
Comment
garce

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 7103
Share

Post
#17

06-08-2011, 11:32 PM

Better off setting up a business in China or Russia.
Comment
scarlettcontent

www.scarlettcontent.net

Join Date: Mar 2006

Posts: 6031
Share

Post
#18

06-09-2011, 03:32 AM

omg just crazy

Scarlett Content - Adult Content Provider - High Quality Adult Stock Content for your Websites, Mobile Media and Print.

Over 3 Million Images (14,000 photo sets) over 5000 Videos - Many Niches, US-2257, Awesome Prices.
Over 40 years in the adult industry.

[email protected] Follow us on twitter.
Comment
CyberHustler

Masterbaiter

Join Date: Feb 2006

Posts: 28750
Share

Post
#19

06-09-2011, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by livexxx

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?

Stay on one subject muh fucka!

“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
Comment
Barry-xlovecam

It's 42

Join Date: Jun 2010

Posts: 18083
Share

Post
#20

06-09-2011, 04:59 AM

Tennessee home of the The Scopes Trial?formally known as The State of Tennessee v. Scopes and informally known as the Scopes Monkey Trial.

If this law is objectionable, it would be in its application to non criminal behavior.

If this law is applied in a strict scope of its legislative intent it would be upheld under the 1st Amendment.

The Overbreath Doctrine would not apply if the conviction was in a case of images used in Criminal Harassment (a criminal offense).

"[A]N ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Paft3, relative to the offense of harassment. ...

http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/107/pub/pc0362.pdf
Comment
PR_Glen

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2006

Posts: 9058
Share

Post
#21

06-09-2011, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by mountainmiester

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?

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.

webmaster at pimproll dot com
Comment
spazlabz

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 6548
Share

Post
#22

06-09-2011, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by DBS.US

special note here: That is NOT a hillbilly
Comment
Tom_PM

Porn Meister

Join Date: Feb 2005

Posts: 16443
Share

Post
#23

06-09-2011, 06:27 AM

"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.

43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.
Comment
spazlabz

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Posts: 6548
Share

Post
#24

06-09-2011, 07:08 AM

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
Comment
CaptainHowdy

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Dec 2004

Posts: 94744
Share

Post
#25

06-09-2011, 08:48 AM

YOUR AD HERE!
Comment
GregE

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2004

Posts: 2704
Share

Post
#26

06-09-2011, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by GatorB

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?

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.

50/50 lifetime payout - EXCLUSIVE CONTENT - CCBill
CLiCK here for your Bun Beating Dollars.
Comment
Gonzo Modeling

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Aug 2009

Posts: 465
Share

Post
#27

06-09-2011, 09:14 AM

wat...........
Comment
Quentin

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 1280
Share

Post
#28

06-09-2011, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Barry-xlovecam

If this law is applied in a strict scope of its legislative intent it would be upheld under the 1st Amendment.
]

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

Volokh's take is as follows:

Friday, a new Tennessee law was changed to provide (new material italicized):

(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally:

(4) Communicates with another person or transmits or displays an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim by [by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication] without legitimate purpose:

(A) (i) With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or

(ii) In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and

(B) As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.

So the law now applies not just to one-to-one communication, but to people?s posting images on their own Facebook pages, on their Web sites, and in other places if (1) they are acting ?without legitimate purpose,? (2) they cause emotional distress, and (3) they intend to cause emotional distress or know or reasonably should know that their action will cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities. So,

1. If you?re posting a picture of someone in an embarrassing situation ? not at all limited to, say, sexually themed pictures or illegally taken pictures ? you?re likely a criminal unless the prosecutor, judge, or jury concludes that you had a ?legitimate purpose.?
2. Likewise, if you post an image intended to distress some religious, political, ethnic, racial, etc. group, you too can be sent to jail if governments decisionmaker thinks your purpose wasn?t ?legitimate.? Nothing in the law requires that the picture be of the ?victim,? only that it be distressing to the ?victim.?
3. The same is true even if you didn?t intend to distress those people, but reasonably should have known that the material ? say, pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group ? would ?cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities.?
4. And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.

Pretty clearly unconstitutional, it seems to me.

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.

Q. Boyer
Comment
JamesGw

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2011

Posts: 1237
Share

Post
#29

06-09-2011, 10:59 AM

Unconstitutional. It'd never stand in federal court.

Giggles.com has a huge selection of sex toys. Need backlinks? Ask to guest post on our adult blog.
Comment
D Ghost

null

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 9820
Share

Post
#30

06-09-2011, 01:06 PM

"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."
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...