Crime scene photos vs free speach?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Hustler magazine recently requested crime scene photos for use (i.e. publication) in an upcoming story. The pictures show the nude decapitated body of a 24-year-old woman, Meredeth Emerson, who was killed while hiking in the North Georgia mountains. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation declined to release the photos, a judge issued an injunction barring release of the photos (at the request of Emerson's family), and the state legislature is certain to pass House Bill 1322, "The Meredith Emerson Memorial Privacy Act," which would "prevent the release of photographs of the bodies of crime victims that are "nude, bruised, bloodied or in a broken state with open wounds, a state of dismemberment or decapitation." The bill will allow credentialed journalists, lawyers and law enforcement to view such photographs at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's headquarters, but not make copies of them. Hustler is "considering its legal options". Story (from CNN)
here.

So, I'm a bit conflicted about this. On the one hand anyone who would actually want to see such pictures are (IMHO) beyond "sick and twisted", and publication of the photos will be emotionally devastating to the victim's family and friends (even if they don't look at the photos themselves, just knowing that many people are seeing [and perhaps enjoying seeing] their daughter/sister/friend in that condition). The confessed killer is behind bars, and his guilt is beyond question as he led police to her body in exchange for the death penalty being taken off the table, so it's hard to make an argument that publication of the photos will lead to any new information on the case from the public. On the other hand, denying the "press" (even Hustler) the right to publish such photos is a limitation on free speach. So, do the dead have any right to "privacy"? Is it reasonable to restrict publication of such images (note the magazine can still print the story, including descriptions of the crime scene, just not graphic photos)? Or should Hustler (and by extension anybody) have the right to make a buck, regardless of harm to the victim's family, by publishing such photos (presumably to exploit their "shock value").

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[JohnRich 4]

As it stands now, things that happen in public are open season by the media, and victim's concerns do not count. The victims only get to be victimized again by the media. I don't care for that.

When the Space Shuttle blew up on launch in 1986, the press tried to get the cockpit voice recordings, allegedly revealing that some of the astronauts were still alive after the explosion, while the crew cabin plummeted towards the ocean. NASA successfully withheld that recording, despite lawsuits by the press. Because they were a government entity, that made some kind of difference.

In 1987, I made a tape recording of a shooting incident which was personally very disturbing to my family. I turned it over to police as evidence against the shooter. That put it into the public domain, and the press sued to copy the tape, and splash it all over the news. I retained an attorney to try and prevent that, but lost. The press got the tape. The public "right to know" superseded my family's rights as a victim. We were victimized yet again.

I'm in favor of these types of things being sealed by the courts. The jury needs to see them, of course. They can let the facts be known to the public, without being gruesome and disrespectful about it.

[livendive 8]

Tough call. I think there are some cases in which some social significance can be promoted, but there are others in which the only intentions are prurient. I think the answer is probably best found in obscenity laws.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[BillyVance 34]

I remember from old Hustler magazines that they would publish crime scene photos of dead and mutilated bodies....

I'm surprised they still do.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[skyrider 0]

Just another ploy to get free publicity, Hell, I didn't een knwo Hustler was still in business until I saw this!

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Just another ploy to get free publicity, Hell, I didn't een knwo Hustler was still in business until I saw this!

Well, Larry Flynt's still in a wheelchair so I guess nothing's changed.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Quincy 0]

This is really simple. Here's how to answer your own question.

Assume:

1. The victim is YOUR daughter
2. You are a single parent ... she is your only child
3. She is the apple of your eye ... the center of your world
4. You are the same to her
5. Do you want the courts ... or anyone for that matter saying a porn magazine or any magazine ... can publish her nude, tortured, raped body for all to see?

How you answer that is how the courts should answer it.

[FreeflyChile 0]

I disagree - I don't think the laws that apply to all and could set limits on rights should be made based on emotion, especially on the emotion of a single person.

I am not saying I am saying the magazine should/should not have access to the photos. I am simply saying the courts should not decide based on the criteria you say is very 'simple'.

[Quincy 0]

FreeflyChile ...

It is still that simple. OK ... so it's not GeorgiaDon's daughter. It's your wife or son. The law for all should be based on what makes moral sense. Is it morally ok to look at your relatives photos in a smut magazine simply because someone tries to extrapolate a legal definition to meet some preverse wish of having access to anything and everything simply because it is THEIR version of free speech?

Convert this discussion to a open poll where everyone places their own relatives in that rag magazine with their own names and see where the opinions fall.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

No Quincy it isn't still that simple. If we made the laws exclusively based on the views of the victims the list of capital crimes would be extensive. I live in a country where a lot of things are closed to the public due to privacy concerns. Often I get the feeling that as a result the deals that the privileged make are kept from the public eye that way. You may say that this is a completely different situation, and it is, but the government must tread very carefully around the concept of curtailing freedom of information.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

I agree the first response of almost everyone who has a shred of decency would be to do what you suggest, and put themselves in the position of the parents of this unfortunate girl. However, I think that should be something the editors and reporters at Hustler should be asking themselves; instead they seem to be more concerned about using the victims unfortunate demise to make money. I tend to agree with FreeflyChile that personalizing things in this manner makes for poor law; if we constrained the press to only publish things that we would be happy to see made public regarding our own immediate family, virtually everything would be off limits and "free speech" would mean nothing. Not every act that is disrespectful, mean-spirited, immoral, or unethical need be illegal. I do wish Hustler would do the right thing and publish the story without the photos.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[wolfriverjoe 1,366]

Quote

FreeflyChile ...

It is still that simple. OK ... so it's not GeorgiaDon's daughter. It's your wife or son. The law for all should be based on what makes moral sense. Is it morally ok to look at your relatives photos in a smut magazine simply because someone tries to extrapolate a legal definition to meet some preverse wish of having access to anything and everything simply because it is THEIR version of free speech?

Convert this discussion to a open poll where everyone places their own relatives in that rag magazine with their own names and see where the opinions fall.

Determining whether or not a pic should be published based on what the family might think would stop a significant majority of news photos from being published.

How about those accused of crimes?
Or pics of car accidents?
Or a house that burned down?

Sorry, but the right of the public to know often trumps the right of the family to privacy.

In this particular case, the purient interests of the publisher are simply to generate contoversy and sensationalism. Which is what Larry Flynt and Hustler do.

I'd prefer to see them blocked (again, in this particular case).

But I don't agree at all with basing this law on what you decide is moral or not.

That level of emotionalism is why courts and juries are supposed to be neutral parties.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[redlegphi 0]

Typically, while we're alive, we have a say over the display/taking of images of our own bodies. The only reason the victim (or her family) in this case didn't have a say on if the photos could be taken is because she was dead and they were required for the criminal investigation. Since the criminal investigation is completed, I think the right for display of the photographs should revert back to the family. I do agree that "credentialed journalists, lawyers and law enforcement" should be allowed to view the photos (though not take copies) as that can help validate/invalidate the case and help future law enforcement personnel learn from this case.

such is my two cents

[Quincy 0]

Quote

Sorry, but the right of the public to know often trumps the right of the family to privacy.

In this particular case, the purient interests of the publisher are simply to generate contoversy and sensationalism.

And what 'right' does the PUBLIC have in this...???... Your next sentence says it all. It's those with some purient interest ... or some other claimed interest ... that want to exploit a situation to their own personal advantage. GeorgiaDon asked the question show it or not. He stated he didn't know what the answer should be. Then put yourself in the victim's/family's position and answer the question of what it should be. This is what the Georgia legislature addressed in their new bill. I go back to my original proposition ... moral values were what this country was founded on. Exploitation of the language has brought us to the deplorable state this country is in now, which necessitates having a state legislature having to go thru the time and expense to thwart such attempts by Hustler/others for whatever reason they foist as their <<< RIGHT >>>...!!!...

[jakee 1,271]

Quote

On the other hand, denying the "press" (even Hustler) the right to publish such photos is a limitation on free speach.

Why?

The photo's don't belong to Hustler, they belong to the GBI. Hustler can't force you to release any of your words, photo's or other forms of speech to them for publication, so why should they be able to force the release of these photo's?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Quote

On the other hand, denying the "press" (even Hustler) the right to publish such photos is a limitation on free speach.

Why?

The photo's don't belong to Hustler, they belong to the GBI. Hustler can't force you to release any of your words, photo's or other forms of speech to them for publication, so why should they be able to force the release of these photo's?

The main (and only) reason I can think of is FOIA. Though, as I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea if that would even apply in this case. And it seems like even that would be covered by the GBI's offer to allow people who need to view it to do so without taking a copy.

[wolfriverjoe 1,366]

Quote

And what 'right' does the PUBLIC have in this...???... Your next sentence says it all. It's those with some purient interest ... or some other claimed interest ... that want to exploit a situation to their own personal advantage. GeorgiaDon asked the question show it or not. He stated he didn't know what the answer should be. Then put yourself in the victim's/family's position and answer the question of what it should be. This is what the Georgia legislature addressed in their new bill. I go back to my original proposition ... moral values were what this country was founded on. Exploitation of the language has brought us to the deplorable state this country is in now, which necessitates having a state legislature having to go thru the time and expense to thwart such attempts by Hustler/others for whatever reason they foist as their <<< RIGHT >>>...!!!...

Quote

The photo's don't belong to Hustler, they belong to the GBI. Hustler can't force you to release any of your words, photo's or other forms of speech to them for publication, so why should they be able to force the release of these photo's?

I guess I thought the country was founded on rights and freedoms more than moral values.

And this is a clear example of that. Larry Flynt has pushed boundaries his entire career.

Does the public's "right to know" trump the victim's family's "right to privacy"?

In this case, the publication seems (to me at least) to be for publicity and sensationalism. But does that negate the rights of the press?

That's for an impartial (I couldn't think of that word last night - too tired) court to decide. Balancing the various sides "rights" and reasons to make (hopefully) the best decision.

On a similar note, do hate groups like the KKK have the right to parade (public assembly) and make speeches from the steps of the state capitol (free speech)?

As repugnant as those groups are, the answer is yes.


And Jakee - The GBI is a public institution. Funded by the taxpayers, performing a public service.

Technically, the pictures were taken with public property, by public servants.

That makes those pictures public property too.
Whether or not they should be released to the public is a good question, but the ownership isn't.

There's lots of "public property" like that.

I can't go to the police station and demand use of "my" (as a member of the public) police car, but it is technically "mine", at least a little bit.
There was a National Guard helicopter that stopped by my DZ a year or so ago. The pilots were very nice and let us sit in it. They clearly said that it belonged to us (as members of the public).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[redlegphi 0]

I don't really see this as a "right to know" thing. Everybody already knows what happened. And if they doubt the official story of what happened, they have the right to examine the evidence if they'd like to come to their own findings. They don't have the right to exploit the evidence to make a profit. I view the criminal records here as similar to my medical records. Just because they're owned by the government doesn't mean everybody has a right to look at them.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

I was thinking in terms of an idealized extreme of "free speech" in which the press would have full access to all information regardless of source, without any constraints at all. Of course we don't have (or really want) that degree of "freedom", because that would necessitate the complete lack of privacy, and that would interfere with our ability to enjoy other freedoms. However, any limitation on the ability of the press to obtain and publish information (however good the reason) can be seen as a limitation of free speech. There will always be a conflict between privacy rights and free speech (or a free press), and the issue here is where to draw the line to balance those two important rights in a reasonable manner. I think it's reasonable to restrict the publication of photos that show a crime victim in a state where she is nude, headless, and in a state of decay, but then again it's beyond me why anyone would want to publish or see such pictures in the first place. Similarly, existing law in Georgia restricts the publication of autopsy photos; this situation doesn't seem to be very different. On the other hand, the proposed law would seem to prevent the press from publishing images that show a bloody nose or black eye, and I think that goes too far. Crime scenes are one thing, but the law could also ban images of war, terrorist attacks, or even earthquake victims being rescued from collapsed buildings. Surely there is a compelling public interest in those images, as wars, terrorist attacks, and earthquakes are all legitimate news stories. Think of the Vietnam War era photo of the little girl who had been burned in a napalm attack; that one image really brought home the horror of that war, and under the proposed law its publication would be illegal.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Is there any real difference between what Hustler wants to do and what CNN perps and victims channel does? Whether they are as graphic is not the issue; at the core they are doing the same thing. That entire channel earns its living off sensationalism of crime with a particular emphasis on juvenile victims. Apparently it sells.