Tag Archives: Tennessee

Rick Tyler on the Threats of Negative Symbolism in a Free Society

» Dealing With the Swastika and the KKK | Tyler for Congress

Source: Dealing With the Swastika and the KKK

Voting Libertarian—feeling very unsatisfied…. And (what I hope will be) my last word on Orly Taitz….

I watch very little television.  I watch even less political television because TV if anything is entertainment, not a quiet forum or arena to think and reflect, nor even for meaningful discussion.  The worst 3 minutes I saw on Political Television were the 3 minutes 39 seconds Gary Johnson got from Geraldo at Large on October 21.  What a pathetic FARCE—the mainstream media managed to give a genuinely different candidate almost LESS THAN NOTHING—just enough time to emphasize how little importance they gave him.  It was at that moment that I decided I had to support Gary Johnson for President—even if I hadn’t voted Libertarian in the last several elections.  

I had very briefly considered a true “protest vote” for Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (more out of respect for Cindy Sheehan), but I decided I just didn’t like Cindy enough to make up for bearing the shameful stain, for the rest of my life, of having voted (even in protest) for Roseanne Barr…..  So I voted for a fine, decent, constitutionally sound man who doesn’t have a chance in Hades of ever winning anything….  I confess that I also couldn’t bring my “right wing right hand” to fill in blanks for a party called “Peace and Freedom”—at least not in these United States with our dismal recent history of post-1984 constant Orwellian doublespeak…..

As I stated, I have already cast my ballot by mail and may or may not try to avail myself of the call in and reference privilege to see whether LA County counted it or not.  I know that Gary Johnson will probably not in fact win even 1% of the popular vote nationwide and no Libertarian candidate has ever earned even a single “pledged” electoral vote, which means that the Libertarian parties lag behind not only the American Independents under George Corley Wallace and the States’ Rights Democrats under Strom Thurmond but also non-candidates such as Harry Flood Byrd (“Harry F. Byrd, Sr.”) who in 1960 received 14 unpledged electoral votes.  

As for “faithless” electoral votes in 1968, Virginia Elector Roger McBride, pledged for Republicans Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, cast his electoral votes for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Theodora Nathan. McBride’s vote for Nathan was the first electoral vote cast for a woman in U.S. history.  Roger McBride became the Libertarian candidate for President in the 1976 election, on which occasion he received no electoral votes, although Ronald Reagan (not running in the general election) got one “faithless” electoral vote.

California has all but banned write-in candidates and so it is impossible to vote for really minor party candidates.  I might have liked to have voted for Merlin Miller and Virginia Abernethy of the American Third Position Party, but it’s not an option.  I hope that Californians will see the counterproductive tyrannical nature of “top two” candidates for federal legislative office (House and Senate) because this cuts out third parties and independent candidates all together.  And just perpetuates the Democan and Republicrat content free monopoly on party politics, where there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the major party nominees anymore….. George Wallace Democrats and John Ashbrook Republicans who were a vital part of the 1972 election 40 years ago are a thing of the past.   There are now ONLY McGovern lefty Democrats and Rockefeller-Nixon left-wing Republicans, at least in the mainstream—  There are not even any Goldwater Republicans aside from Ron Paul or really any moderate Democrats left in the arena.

So the thinking person hungers for the creation of an American Equivalent of the French Front National—a conservative party that offers a real difference to Mitt Romney wishy-washy Northeastern liberalism and Barack Obama’s hardcore socialism.  The British BNP is (a) an electoral flop and a failure, (b) plagued by constant infighting in the tiny British conservative wing, and yet the BNP is more viable in the UK than either the Libertarian or the AP3 parties.  Gary Johnson was a fine governor of New Mexico, but he has all the charisma of Ron Paul, which is why Ron Paul could never get on the Republican Party Ballot or steal an electoral vote even from a faithless elector.  AP3 is ONLY on the ballot in 3 states (Colorado, Tennessee, and New Jersey—and after Sandy the turnout in New Jersey is probably going to be pretty damned weak).  

In closing, I see that my former flame Orly Taitz has filed another set of electoral challenges right before the election in addition to her continually pointless comedy of errors to disqualify Obama.   I wish to offer what I suspect will be the final word on Orly, or at least my final word on Orly: she is a total and complete, unmitigated, unredeemable fraud.  Her crusade over the past four years has done  NOTHING except to discredit all critics of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility.   She has squeaked and squawked “louder and higher” than anybody else, but she has not learned from her mistakes or altered her strategy in the least.  I accuse Orly Taitz of being just another tool for Obama’s campaign of deception and deceit.  All “birthers” are stained by her disastrous, unprofessional  litigation campaigns.  All “conservatives” who question Barack Obama are lumped with Orly’s otherwise undistinguished platform of Empty Neo-Con Platitudes.  There was a time, in 2009, when I believed that it was possible to use the litigation process to challenge Obama, but Orly blew every possible opportunity and her strategy was aimed to HER PUBLIC AUDIENCE, not the Courts, and she admitted as much to me in private.  

All constitutional conservatives, all who believe as I do that Obama should never have been President, should shun Orly Taitz and let her sink silently into the rubbish heap of history.  Her own campaigns for California Secretary of State and U.S. Senate were disgraceful self-funded plans of self-glorification with not one iota of sincere belief or genuine crusade…..

Merlin Miller is a film-maker, and I hope he will use his talents to develop an alternative media campaign and some documentaries which will advance the cause of true conservatism.   I recommend documentaries on the decline and fall of the American Family with the help of American Family Courts, as well as on the mortgage crisis and the role of foreign investors and international bankers in all but obliterating true private home ownership as a realistic dream for most of the middle bourgeois and all of the working classes.   I think we should have documentaries on how feminism has resulted in increased numbers of women opting for prostitution and the various “sex-trade” businesses, for the simple reason that the modern norm of state-licensed marriage is hardly distinguishable (either morally or economically) from late 19th century licensed prostitution.

This year, the “Moonrise Kingdom” reminded us of how beautiful and innocent life in the antique (1965) homogeneous middle class society could be, even through the tempestuous early teen years of adolescence, even in the face of bureaucratic obstinancy and legal stupidity.  The movie “Hunger Games” showed us the bleak future of an America governed by an “Obamanation”-type plutocratic socialist elite which squeezes every last drop of blood out of the strongest and most worthy of the ordinary, common people.  The movie “Batman: Dark Knight Rises” served as a cover for the worst of the tendencies in our nation precisely TOWARDS the plutocratic socialist oligarchy of the “Hunger Games” and was simultaneously used as a screen of a completely different kind in Aurora, Colorado, to promote the step-by-step obliteration of liberty and any semblance of justice and constitutional due process of law in these United States of America.  “Batman”, in short, became emblematic for our descent into darkness, not our rise from it.

I predict Obama will win the election and that all the worst fears expressed by Dinesh D’Souza in “Obama 2016” will fade and look pale in comparison with reality.   If Mitt Romney wins, I will smile, very briefly, just to think that I can actually look at a picture of the de facto but Anti-Constitutional President without ralphing.  I think Romney is probably technically qualified to be President in the ways that Obama was not, but in all probability we’ll have Four More Years (some say eight) of Kenyan Dictatorship in store for us….

Tennessee is a dangerous place to think; the First Amendment ESPECIALLY Protects all Expressions of “Offensive” and “Injurious” thought—because these are the most dangerous to the “Comfort” of those who wield power

Tenn. law bans posting images that "cause emotional distress"
By  | Published 4 days ago
Tenn. law bans posting images that "cause emotional distress"

A new Tennessee law makes it a crime to “transmit or display an image” online that is likely to “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress” to someone who sees it. Violations can get you almost a year in jail time or up to $2500 in fines.

The Tennessee legislature has been busy updating its laws for the Internet age, and not always for the better. Last week we reported on a bill that updated Tennessee’s theft-of-service laws to include “subscription entertainment services” like Netflix.

The ban on distressing images, which was signed by Gov. Bill Haslam last week, is also an update to existing law. Tennessee law already made it a crime to make phone calls, send emails, or otherwise communicate directly with someone in a manner the sender “reasonably should know” would “cause emotional distress” to the recipient. If the communciation lacked a “legitimate purpose,” the sender faced jail time.

The new legislation adds images to the list of communications that can trigger criminal liability. But for image postings, the “emotionally distressed” individual need not be the intended recipient. Anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court decides you “should have known” that an image you posted would be upsetting to someone who sees it, you could face months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

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.”

Another provision of the legislation governs law enforcement access to the contents of communications on social networking sites. The government can get access to “images or communications” posted to a social networking site by offering “specific and articulable facts,” suggesting that the information sought is “relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

This section, too, faces constitutional problems. Julian Sanchez, a privacy scholar at the Cato Institute, tells Ars that “this is a lower standard than the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act requires” for unread communications. More importantly, because Tennessee is in the Sixth Circuit, it is bound by that court’sWarshak decision, which held that the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a full search warrant in order to access e-mail communications. “That case dealt with e-mail,” Sanchez said, “but there’s no good reason to think a private message on a social network site is any different.”

Rep. Charles Curtiss, the lead sponsor of the legislation, did not respond to our request for comment.

Further reading

Post A Picture That ‘Causes Emotional Distress’ And You Could Face Jailtime In Tennessee

from the outlawing-jerks? dept

Over the last few years, we’ve seen a troubling trend in various state laws which attempt to come up with ways to outlaw being a jerk online. Many of these are based on politicians and/or the public taking an emotional reaction to something bad happening after some does something online that angered someone else. Of course, while it would be nice if jerks would go away or jerky behavior would cease, that’s just not realistic. The real issue is: how can it be constitutional to outlaw being a jerk? In many cases it raises serious First Amendment issues, among other things. The latest to jump into this game is the state of Tennessee, which apparently decided that just throwing people in jail for sharing music subscription passwordswasn’t enough: now they want to put people in jail for “causing emotional distress” to others.

The specific law outlaws posting a photo online that causes “emotional distress” to someone and has no “legitimate purpose.” While the law does state that there needs to be “malicious intent,” it also includes a massive loophole, in that it says that you can still be liable if the person “reasonably should know” that the actions would “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress.” Eugene Volokh notes all sorts of problems with this:

  • 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.”
  • 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.”
  • 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.”
  • And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.

Honestly, any time you have a law where the liability is based on how some other person feels, you’ve got a pretty serious problem. You can criminalize actions, but making someone a criminal because someone else feels “emotional distress” seems like a huge stretch.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110606/22513614573/post-picture-that-causes-emotional-distress-you-could-face-jailtime-tennessee.shtml

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.