Kentucky Legislature: HB 170

[Darrell KSR]

AN ACT relating to the use of electronic media.
Create a new section of KRS Chapter 438 to prohibit anyone who witnesses an event that could reasonably result in serious physical injury from posting about it on electronic media for at least one hour and impose a fine for violations.

Umm, good luck with that.

[KSRBEvans]

I'd love to know what rocket scientist thought that was constitutional, or even a good idea.

[KSRBEvans]

OK, so apparently it's sponsored by a Rep. John Carney, Republican from the 51st District (Taylor and Adair Counties). His Wikipedia entry lists him as teaching social studies at Taylor County HS.

I'm guessing he doesn't teach on the U.S. Constitution. Just a galactically stupid idea.

[SalsaKat]

I already posted my take on Twitter, so I'll be a social media whore and promote it here

https://twitter.com/UKSalsaKat/statu...03574969630720

[PedroDaGr8]

This is strictly to stop people from posting video of police officers abusing power. Much like the must stay 20ft away law in AZ. The 20ft law in AZ makes sense at first, until you realize that it is very easy for the police to abuse by having one officer walking towards the videographer while the other does his thing. Also, the person could be 50ft away and the officer could say it was only 20 (the officer will be believed first). He then can arrest the person and delete the video (which happens a LOT). The deleting the video ties back into this law. 1hr gives them time to detain all of the witnesses and delete any evidence they don't want seen, if it isn't backed up to social media, once it is gone it is likely gone.

[Darrell KSR]

Carney has withdrawn the bill. I think he read this thread.

[PedroDaGr8]

Carney has withdrawn the bill. I think he read this thread.

Did he ever say what he claimed the bill was supposed to solve?

[Darrell KSR]

FRANKFORT, Ky. (WHAS11) -- The lawmaker behind a plan to fine anyone posting about traumatic events for an hour admits it's not constitutional.

Kentucky State Representative John "Bam" Carney filed House Bill 170.

Carney says his intent was to give police and first responders a chance to notify family of those involved in accidents and events that can involve injuries before finding out on social media.

The law would fine anyone posting pictures, video or information about traumatic events for an hour after the event had taken place.

Monday we asked Representative Carney whether he thought the bill was constitutional.

Carney responded, "No, I know it's not."

He added, "I wanted for this, chance like this, to basically and again to bring out and try to get people's attention to be more sensitive about what they do put on social media in times of tragedy."

Representative Carmey said he never intended HB170 to infringe upon the media's ability to report on events.

http://www.whas11.com/story/news/pol...osts/78687892/

[badrose]

Fair enough. Just wasn't thought through.

[PedroDaGr8]

FRANKFORT, Ky. (WHAS11) -- The lawmaker behind a plan to fine anyone posting about traumatic events for an hour admits it's not constitutional.

Kentucky State Representative John "Bam" Carney filed House Bill 170.

Carney says his intent was to give police and first responders a chance to notify family of those involved in accidents and events that can involve injuries before finding out on social media.

The law would fine anyone posting pictures, video or information about traumatic events for an hour after the event had taken place.

Monday we asked Representative Carney whether he thought the bill was constitutional.

Carney responded, "No, I know it's not."

He added, "I wanted for this, chance like this, to basically and again to bring out and try to get people's attention to be more sensitive about what they do put on social media in times of tragedy."

Representative Carmey said he never intended HB170 to infringe upon the media's ability to report on events.

http://www.whas11.com/story/news/pol...osts/78687892/

That actually sounds like a logical and real answer. I actually believe I was wrong in my synopsis of this one. Having seen too many laws that are intended to stifle people exposing bad behavior by the police, I logically assumed this was one of them. Having seen his reason, I believe that actually wasn't the case.