WHEN DID REPUBLICAN SENATORS DECIDE THEY HAD BEEN MADE DICTATORS?

Laws being passed in several states are shockingly violating the Constitution of the United States.  Are the Governors ignorant of the Constitution or do they really believe that the States care more power than the Federal Government?  The most recent one is the Tennessee law which   'criminalizes “transmitting or displaying” any image that under a “reasonable expectation” might “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress” to anyone who sees it. This includes not only images posted on the Internet, but also television and any other “electronic communications service” currently in existence.'.Nicholas Mendozza writes:  "The law has already been denounced as “pretty clearly unconstitutional” by conservative legal scholar Eugene Volokh. He notes that if someone is accused of transmitting an offending image, the burden is on them to prove that they have a “legitimate” reason for posting the image, and that the legitimacy in question would be determined by the “prosecutor, judge, or jury” in question. He further notes that images that might “reasonably” fall under the law’s very broad purview could be of a religious, political or journalistic nature — all of which are forms of speech that the First Amendment was explicitly crafted to protect.": 

Jennifer Van Grove writes:  'The exact language of the law now reads:

(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"

Since emotions are quite subjective, the law not only violates the right to free speech since free speech is interpreted as pictures as well as oral speech, but makes it impossible to determine whether an image may only upset one irrational, paranoid, or one mistakenly interpreting the Bible, to mention a few possibilities.  How did so many despots get elected to run states this last election.  What can be done about them to make people feel like they got out of OZ and back to Kansas.

Read Pamela Geller commenting on the new law, as well.

.