Tag Archives: Tennessee

Comparing Catalonia and the Confederacy—States and Nations (with notes on the Monstrosity of Moderation in Media)

SPAIN TRIED AND FAILED TO SUPPRESS A VOTE FOR SECESSION IN ITS WEALTHY NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF CATALONIA TODAY (Sunday October 1, 2017).  According to the latest tally I have seen on the BBC, 2,020,144 Catalan voters cast their ballots in favor of an Independent Republic, centered on the Mediterranean seaport of Barcelona.  These two million plus voters constituted 90.09% of the 42-43% of the eligible electorate who voted, but Spain itself had urged pro-Spanish “no” voters to stay away from the Polls, and the massive police intervention and use of force must have discouraged some….

Although during the past 42 years that “Francisco Franco is still dead,” Spain has acknowledged the right of the several nationalities (Basque, Galician, Catalan) to assert regional autonomy, Spain has declared this vote illegal and non-binding. The Central Government of Spain in Madrid has been arguing ever since the election of the pro-Independence party in September of 2015,  that Catalonia’s vote was going to be “illegal” and they threatened to, and actually did, try to suppress the vote by Police Action.  

Most of the world (which has spoken) has either come out expressly in favor or seems tacitly on the side of Catalans who want independence.  Only Madrid and the Spanish government seem strongly against it—fearful, undoubtedly, of losing prime Mediterranean beach resorts, Barcelona (the second largest city in Spain, seventh largest and “most successful” in all Europe), plus the Balearic Islands (Majorca, Menorca, Ibiza and Formentera).  In essence, Catalonia includes some of the best real estate IN ALL OF EUROPE AND THE CIRCUM MEDITERRANEAN WORLD.  This is indeed “the Spanish Riviera”.

The comparison to the Secession of the Confederate States of America is obvious, but it isn’t getting much currency in the U.S. or British Media, despite the fact that the Confederate States have made a renewed appearance in the news since April, here in New Orleans and around the USA…. and even in the consciousness of the whole world.

So, since nobody else is making the comparison (that I’ve seen so far, anyhow, I will).   In 1860, the Southern states formed (per capita) the richest part of the United States.   Catalonia had better hope that world opinion remains on its side!    Because Spain has its eyes and tax collectors all focused on this rich province, and history tells us that the rich can be laid low when they try to retain their wealth….

For the record, Catalonia was originally, and has always considered itself, a separate “Nationality” (i.e. ethnolinguistic group). During the Middle Ages, the County of Barcelona became the Capital of the “Principality of Catalonia” which later became incorporated into the Kingdom of Aragon.  Aragon, in turn, was one of the most powerful and richest states in the post-Reconquista/Crusader world of the Mediterranean.  Then Aragon, later, under the 15th century reigns of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile, merged to form the modern Nation-State of “Spain”, leading to 500 years of almost continuous unity, although Aragon and Catalonia have several times reasserted their identities as monarchies or republics.

As James Ronald & Walter Donald Kennedy have shown in their most recent book “Punished with Poverty: the Suffering South, Prosperity to Poverty and the Continuing Struggle”  Columbia, South Carolina: Shotwell Publishing (2016), and as my dearly beloved grandmother always told me, THE SOUTH WAS THE WEALTHIEST PART OF THE UNITED STATES, “before the War” and the poorest part afterwards.   The combined cash value of the crops in any of the three pairs of Virginia and Georgia or Mississippi and Louisiana or North & South Carolina (each pair taken alone) exceeded the cash value of all the manufactured goods produced north of the Mason & Dixon-Ohio River—as of 1860.  But as of 1870, war had irreversibly altered the situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shsf–rh4PE

While neither historians or any Southerners today doubt that the people of the South overwhelmingly favored secession in 1861, the state legislatures only voted to hold popular votes as referenda/plebiscites/”propositions” in three of the thirteen states and one territory seceding (there were fifteen “slave” states, but a secession vote in the legislature in Maryland was suppressed at gunpoint and the state of Delaware never tried—West Virginia seceded from Virginia but kept its slaves and (ironically) after the war was among the most hostile toward enfranchisement of the newly freed slaves, as evidenced in several of the early major civil rights cases which emerged from that idiosyncratic Appalachian state opposite Ohio that seceded to nullify secession—oh, and Arizona was a territory constituting the southern half of what is now Arizona and New Mexico, but had then all been “New Mexico” until 1861).

In the states that held popular vote referenda, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, the votes in favor of secession were nowhere nearly as lopsided as the vote held in Catalonia today (Sunday, October 1, 2017), but it should be noted that NO NORTHERN STATE, nor the United States Federal Government, under President James Buchanan, ever questioned or attempted to quash secession in any state.  From South Carolina’s legislature’s first Ordinance of Secession on December 20, 1860, through Louisiana’s secession as the sixth state on January 26, 1861, the popular support for separation from the Union never appeared to waver or be doubtful.

SOUTHERN SECESSION PLEBESCITES

In February of 1861, Texas’ legislature voted to dissolve the state’s barely 16 year old affiliation with the Union on February 1, and a popular referendum was held on February 23, wherein the vote was 3.13:1 in favor of disunion.  

Virginia went through a similar two stage process in April and May of 1861, and the vote there (after Fort Sumter) was 3.53:1 in favor of taking the Old Dominion state into the Confederacy.  Robert E. Lee had opposed secession, but IN THOSE DAYS ONE’S CITIZENSHIP BELONGED TO THE STATE, NOT THE FEDERATION.  It would be comparable to calling us all “Citizens of the United Nations”—maybe some people WANT Global Citizenship, but so far, THANK GOD, no politically viable majority anywhere have ever voted for such a thing.

Finally, in May-June, Tennessee voted to secede, although the popular vote in that state was only 2.21:1 (for reference and comparison, NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER WON ANY ELECTION BY A 2.21-1 POPULAR VOTE (although Lyndon B. Johnson came closest in 1964 against Goldwater at 1.58 to 1 comparable to FDR in 1936 against Alf Landon at 1.61 to 1—there being more third party votes in 1936 which reduced Roosevelt’s over all majority win very slightly).

IS FREEDOM TO CHOOSE REALLY TREASON?

How many of you have been divorced?  No, it’s a serious question.  How many of you have been divorced AFTER taking a vow “Til Death do Us Part”?  I was born an “Anglo-Catholic” (i.e. Episcopalian) and my wife was born Greek Orthodox in Greece.  My parents, despite their vows, split up when I was pre-school/kindergarten and it had a major impact on my life, mostly negative.  I especially regret now, looking back on it, how my grandmother taught me to scorn my own father.  That MIGHT have been a bad thing…  Anyhow, my point was this: my wife Elena and I swore personally to each other, quite aside from the marital vows, that we would never be divorced, that we would always stick together.  And we made collateral agreements that made I think this was actually a genuine promise that we would really keep, but we didn’t.  She hired the nastiest team of divorce lawyers (and their wives) in the entire state of Texas.  She turned into a monster.  Now, I blame the system, not her, but we split up, and it wrecked me.

But, in a sense, as one of my law school professors of international law at the University of Chicago said, “the nations of the world are all in a Roman Catholic marriage with one another.”  Or are they?  Are legal unions really indissoluble?  Most people do not believe that law should stand in the way of divorce, although most marital lawyers want divorce to be as much like an expensive world war as humanly possible.  So: is divorce “normal” or is divorce “treason?”

I have to admit, I led a fairly pro-Southern, sheltered life.  Even when I lived up north and attended Harvard GSAS (A.M., Ph.D.) and the University of Chicago law (J.D.) programs, I never ever heard ANYONE ever call the Southern Confederacy TREACHEROUS or the Southern Confederates called “Traitors”—as a matter of fact, everyone I knew at Harvard kind of went out of their way to apologize for Harvard’s apparent iconography of Yankee imperialism and to point out the rather obscure stained glass windows on Memorial Hall and inscriptions dedicated to the graduates of Harvard who fought for the South—(There were 257, significantly more than you might think, including five major generals, eight brigadier generals, and fully 38% of all Harvard Graduates who died in combat 1861-1865 died in the service of the armies the CSA, including three of those brigadier generals).  

So, I confess I was shocked, bowled over in fact, while I was standing in line at the very first public debate held in New Orleans on a steaming day in July in 2015 and an exceedingly unpleasant and unattractive woman in line started talking about how Confederates were all TRAITORS.

Wall Street JOURNAL MODERATE MUGWUMP: Allen C. Guelzo

“A YANKEE VISITS CHARLOTTESVILLE, WHERE GEN. LEE IS UNDER COVER.”

Some writers take poetic license, some take journalistic license.  But let’s face it: some writers DO NOT DESERVE A LICENSE.  Allen C. Guelzo is such a writer, and yet he writes for the Wall Street Journal…. and this is a disaster.  This USED TO BE a conservative, respectable journal***.   But no decent or respectable conservative would ever write that:

“As a Yankee, I find it a little difficult to grasp why monuments to Lee are here in the first place.  He lost, and if there is one sin American culture still prefers to bury from sight, it’s losing. Worse, Lee committed treason against the flag and the Constitution.  And behind that is the ugly truth that the Confederate cause was, when all the rhetorical chaff is swept away, designed to protect Chattel slavery, the singular birth defect of the American republic.” 

This is one of those sad moments when I have to admit I’m glad I’m not Chairman Mao or Uncle Joe Stalin…. because if I were, Guelzo would be TOAST—there wouldn’t be enough left of him to fill a matchbox, I promise.

UNLIKE THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT IN CATALONIA ON SUNDAY OCTOBER 1, 2017—NO POLICE OR TROOPS TRIED TO STOP THE SOUTHERN LEGISLATURES FROM SECEDING OR THE PRO-CONFEDERATE POPULAR VOTES FROM HAPPENING

So, if secession didn’t bother the outgoing President James Buchanan, or if it bothered him he didn’t do anything to stop it.  Buchanan was a Democrat, but he was a PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRAT—a Yankee….the only Pennsylvanian ever to be elected President and the last President born in the 18th century.  

Buchanan supported his own Vice-President, John C. Breckinridge, in the election of 1860—Breckinridge being the choice of the “Southern Democrats” over Stephen Douglas of Illinois.  Breckinridge became a Confederate general—that’s right folks, the Vice-President of the United States who came in Second in the Electoral Vote and Third in the Popular Vote in 1860 became a Confederate General.  Was he a traitor too?  

I ask you (and Guelzo) somewhat rhetorically: IF the Vice-President of any country decides to take up arms agains that Country—don’t you suppose that there are some MAJOR issues at stake?  If James Buchanan believed that he had no constitutional power to stop secession, where did Abraham Lincoln get the idea that he had that power?

For the moment, I will leave that idea to you, but recommend to all my readers the words of James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, but also of Von Mises Institute Economist Thomas James DiLorenzo.

But is it significant that England would surely have allowed Scotland to opt out of the UK if Scotland had voted to do so several years ago?  Is it significant that Spain is trying very hard to look like a bully as it tries to bully Catalonia into submission, but that the world will almost certainly accept Catalonian secession in fairly short order?

***The Wall Street Journal was a feature of life in and around my maternal grandparents’ home in Highland Park in Dallas from the time I went to live there at age 6 years, two months, until my grandmother’s death in May 2001.  I respected it as perhaps the best newspaper in all of North America—I even arranged to have the WSJ delivered to Hacienda Chichén (and later the adjacent Casa Victoria) when I lived there, and made it the headquarters of my Harvard-Peabody-National Geographic-Chichén Itzá Archaeological Project 1983-1988.  Arranging such things by courier delivery from the Aeropuerto Internacional de Cancún in the 1980s was no piece of cake.

 

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.