We Keep Electing Idiots Who Are Strangers To The Constitution
Jonathan Turley writes of a George legislator -- yes, a guy elected lawmaker -- who responded to the parodying of his image by seeking to criminalize Photoshopping photos of people's images:
Rep. Earnest Smith has a curious understanding of the First Amendment. Smith is upset that someone photoshopped his picture by placing his head on the body of a porn star. He has responded by seeking to make such photoshopping a crime and insisting that "No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It's not a First Amendment right." That is news to many of us.The photoshop stunt was the work of Georgia Politics Unfiltered blogger Andre Walker who noted that "I cannot believe Rep. Earnest Smith thinks I'm insulting him by putting his head on the body of a well-built porn star."
It is Smith's understanding of free speech rather than aesthetics that concern me. His new misdemeanor crime would apply to the alteration of any photograph that "causes an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction."
...there are already avenues in torts, including defamation and appropriation of name or likeness, that can be used for valid injuries. Of course, parody is often treated as an exception and the first amendment can bar the use of torts by public officials in some cases. In New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held public officials to a higher standard for a myriad of reasons, including "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."
From the Daily Mail story at the link above, maybe the guy should be thanking the blogger:
"By the way, I cannot believe Representative Earnest Smith thinks I'm insulting him by putting his head on the body of a well-built porn star."
The other co-sponsor of the bill is another idiot who needs remedial lessons in what's in the Constitution -- a Democrat named Pam Dickerson who also had her photo photoshopped.
If Smith, and co-sponsor Pam Dickerson, have their way then such an action would result in a $1,000 fine.Their proposed law would be broken when any "person commits defamation when he or she causes an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction."
Here's Smith's photo. If I were Smith, I'd 1. Laugh. 2. Think I look kinda hot.
I think you misspelled Georgia, about which.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 14, 2013 6:41 AM
(And your sentiments are right on, of course.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 14, 2013 6:41 AM
"person commits defamation when he or she causes an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction."
So the porn star has a case, politics is much more obscene than working in porn.
Joe J at February 14, 2013 7:03 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/02/we-keep-electin.html#comment-3604047">comment from Joe JSo the porn star has a case, politics is much more obscene than working in porn.
Hah - exactly right.
Amy Alkon
at February 14, 2013 7:34 AM
The 1st amendment ABSOLUTELY is about the right to make fun of anyone. Particularly our "leaders."
What a maroon.
Dragonhawk at February 14, 2013 10:46 AM
Given the size of the pixilation relative to the rest of the photo what defamation.
vlad at February 14, 2013 11:04 AM
Given that this is such an obvious photoshop that no one would EVER mistake Rep Smith for the anonymous porn star, even if he got his ridiculous law passed he still wouldn't be able to convict this blogger for this photo.
Actually, I think the porn star is the one who should be offended :p
Kat at February 14, 2013 4:17 PM
Someone should give him the Clockwork Orange treatment for a screening of The People Vs. Larry Flynt. Gah.
Tyler at February 14, 2013 5:28 PM
The reason that First Amendment was written was to allow dissent with politicians.
These legislators need a serious lesson on the Constitution. I don't think the law would survive a Municipal Court judgement let alone any appeals.
Jim P. at February 14, 2013 8:54 PM
"Given the size of the pixilation relative to the rest of the photo what defamation."
One does have to be careful about, erm, raising unrealistic expectations...
Cousin Dave at February 15, 2013 6:54 AM
Leave a comment