Tennessee Bans Freedom of Speech

by Aaron M. Kelly
 

If you haven't heard about it, you probably don't read American newspapers: Tennessee's legislature has amended its laws to ban causing people to become "emotionally distressed" from images posted online.

The new law, which comes into effect on July 1, 2011, will make a criminal out of anyone who, "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 any method described in subdivision (a)(1), without legitimate purpose."

The methods in the subdivision (a)(1) that is referred to include telephone, writing, or electronic communication, including text messaging, fax messages, e-mail, and Internet service.

In addition to other triggering clauses, such as making the communication with malicious intent, the communication or display of image can trigger the offence if done:

"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

As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed."

Interestingly, the "communicates with another person" provision already existed, so Tennesseans have been living with what seems to be a blatantly unconstitutional law for awhile now. What the new law does is to also make publishing pictures which disturb people an offence. To be clear, the law does not require that an accused even directly contact the offended individual. It describes the offended party as the "victim," but makes it an offence to communicate with another "person" in a way that might offend that "victim." Clearly, even communicating with third parties without a legitimate purpose can result in a conviction.

What is markedly absent from the law is what exactly constitutes a "legitimate purpose." This means that as long as the elements of the offence are made out, a case can be brought against someone for posting an image which disturbs someone else, and the accused will be forced to argue that they met whatever the vague standard of a "legitimate purpose" happens to be.

Here are some situations which, if the court does not find they have a "legitimate purpose," would lead to someone being convicted of a crime in the State of Tennessee:

Read More...

Federal Judge Lifts Ban on Prayer in Valedictorian Speech

Students sign petition to ban Glenn Beck and Rush

TSA targets people who complain about TSA security

by The Right Scoop

So they prohibit profiling of actual terrorists, but for those of you who show contempt for the TSA itself, then profiling is in full force:



This is outrageous! The notion that those who dissent against the TSA are a threat and must be targeted sounds like something we’d read about in Russia. Quite frankly this is unamerican and it reminds me of the words of a famous Democrat politician:



Michele Bachmann was right when she called this a gangster government. 2012 please come faster!

Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause

US Government:

The Quran is holy, the Bible is garbage.

Click here for your free copy of Sharia Law For The Non Muslim...

It's Now A Crime to Request A Christian Roommate

Should pastors speak about candidates from the pulpit?

Pastors, not the government, should decide when

they can speak about candidates from the pulpit

by Wayne Grudem

An important moral voice in American public life was muzzled in 1954, and we are still paying the price.

Before 1954, pastors of churches were free to speak out about candidates and political issues whenever they thought it wise to do so, and many did. But in 1954, Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code to restrict the speech of non-profit organizations. This amendment – spearheaded by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson of Texas – required churches to refrain from promoting or opposing any political candidate by name. Apparently Johnson had proposed the amendment to “get back” at two non-profit organizations that had vocally opposed his candidacy. His amendment passed on a voice vote without debate.

Since that time, the IRS has insisted that any speech by churches that deals with candidates for political office, including a pastor’s sermon, could result in a church losing its non-profit, tax-exempt status. This law has suppressed the valuable moral guidance that American pulpits could be contributing to our political process.

Read More...

Principal in trouble over prayer breakfast endorsement

An ADF-allied attorney filed a lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of an elementary school principal against the Goleta Union School District after it threatened to end his contract for appearing in a short video promoting the 52nd Annual Community Prayer Breakfast to honor teachers. Foothill School Principal Craig Richter, a Christian, did not participate in the event, which welcomed all religious faiths, but the district proceeded to discipline him for endorsing the event in the video.

“It’s ridiculous to punish and fire a Christian administrator simply because he wanted to honor teachers at an event that includes prayer,” said ADF Senior Counsel Joseph Infranco. “Principal Richter did absolutely nothing wrong by appearing in the ad, which welcomed all Santa Barbara community members to join the half-century-old community event. The district’s contention that he was somehow violating the Constitution is not only unfounded, but absurd, as the video itself demonstrates.”

Read More, See The Video...

Citizen Assaulted for Filming Governor John Kitzhaber