Slashdot Mirror
Family Has Right of Privacy In Decapitation Photos
big6joe sends in an update to a morbid story we discussed last year: a California appeals court has overturned a lower court ruling, granting the family of an 18-year-old woman who was killed in a traffic accident in 2006 privacy rights and recourse against the California Highway Patrol. "In a case that highlights how the ease of online communication can overthrow both common sense and basic decency, a California appeals court has ruled that families have a right of privacy in the death images of their loved ones. In 2006, an eighteen-year-old woman was decapitated in a traffic accident. Two of the police officers who reported to the scene emailed photos of the woman's body to their friends and family one Halloween."
where are the pictures? anyone got a link?
In 2006, an eighteen-year-old woman was decapitated in a traffic accident. Two of the police officers who reported to the scene emailed photos of the woman's body to their friends and family one Halloween."
Sounds like they have a problem with immature police officers as well. Hopefully the officers got reprimanded for doing that.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
I think it's sad. Just because these people had their feelings hurt does not mean that they should be able to censor pictures that were taken IN PUBLIC of an 18 YEAR OLD ADULT. There was no expectation of privacy and if I recall correctly, the woman was a drug addict who died because she stole her father's Porsche and proceeded to drive it in a very reckless manner.
Fuck that.
Nah, still good enough for me.
...than the Ohio Dept. of Public Safety films we were forced to watch in driver's ed showing decapitations, amputations, and other sordid details meant to "shock" us into not driving drunk/impaired/stupidly?
It's human nature to look upon the misfortunes of others as something fortuitous for the viewer: The idea of "Thank God that's not me or a loved one". And to be truthful here, the Newsweek article pointed to in the original /. story did mention that the M.E. found cocaine in the girl's system, even though the family tried to put the blame on a brain tumor. The family should embrace the opportunity to show young people what happens when they choose to get behind the wheel after a few lines of coke.
If she got drunk and splattered herself on public land and property there is no expectation of privacy.
The problem is the pictures came from the cops, not a bystander or journalist.
How the hell are despotic and evil regimes for the greater good?
Oh wait, they just claim to be. It's called propaganda.
PS: GP is a troll
I fail to see how this is any different from the thousands of people who rubberneck and gawk as they pass an accident on our nation's highways.
If you go out and kill yourself in public, chances are very good people are going to see your dead body. That's what "public" means.
I guess the "problem" here is that it was the police that distributed the photos instead of some hapless bystander who happened to have a cell phone or digital camera? I can understand if they're compromising some homicide investigation... damn right they need to get in deep trouble for that, but if all signs are that you managed to kill yourself in darwinistic fashion (as this appears to be), then your death SHOULD serve as a lesson to the rest of humanity.
The pictures ended up on sites like 4chan, and idiots even found the email addresses of the family and sent trick emails containing the images. They also made harassing prank calls. So the difference in this case is that the officers who distributed the photos directly caused pain and suffering to the family by leaking the pictures to the rest of the world. There are some very cruel people out there who think being callous makes them funny.
ust because these people had their feelings hurt does not mean that they should be able to censor pictures that were taken IN PUBLIC of an 18 YEAR OLD ADULT.
Fair enough. I even agree with this, though I also believe that the officers involved should have been fired. Or, failing that, that the employment rules for the highway patrol have been updated to ensure that the next person who does this DOES get fired. If John Q Public takes the pictures and sends them around, that's one thing; if a public servant who obtains the photos in the line of duty does so, that's an abuse of privilege.
There was no expectation of privacy and if I recall correctly, the woman was a drug addict who died because she stole her father's Porsche and proceeded to drive it in a very reckless manner.
This is where I don't follow. What does a) her possible drug issue or b) how she got the vehicle or c) how she was driving have to do with whether or not the photos are public? I fail to understand.
When something like that happens the public land becomes an crime/crash scene and is not public for the moment.
Hm. That was posted by me. No idea why it went up as Anon Coward; the final version showed my name, sig etc, until I refreshed the page...
I think the question is of right, not expectation. But what differentiates between a right and a merely desired-for right? It seems it comes down to the family not feeling OK with the photos being shown to anyone. Is this enough to establish it as a right that one can block usage of any photos of one's offspring, for any reason? Why stop at photos? Maybe we should allow someone to block mention of someone's name, or a color, etc. if it offends someone somewhere.
and if I recall correctly, the woman was a drug addict who died because she stole her father's Porsche and proceeded to drive it in a very reckless manner.
Excuse me, how is that relevant?
And no, you don't have a right to view the result unless you're a complete fucked-up ghoul.
Unfortunately, the ghouls DO have the right to view. Nobody said free speech was always pretty.
As GP said, the real problem here is that it was police who sent the info out - abusing their positions to do so.
There certainly is an expectation of privacy if the photos were taken by police officers in the course of recording evidence as part of their jobs. The woman had a pre-existing brain injury as the result of childhood cancer which made her prone to impulsive behavior.
Fuck you.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
...identified the victim in the photos and sent them out as a Halloween joke. The images flew across the Internet and the same sick people who frequent the gore sites across the internet emailed the images back to the family with taunts, ridicule and abuse.
Sure, the girl drove under the influence. She paid for it with her life. I think that's sufficient punishment. Her parents buried their teenage daughter. I think that's more than enough punishment.
Speaking as a father, the bad guys in this story are the officers on the scene. How they could think it was OK to use those photos for their own sick little joke on Halloween is beyond me. How they could think they had the authority to release those photos to the public at large is beyond me. Has law enforcement become so craven in this country they don't understand what we mean by "respect for the dead?"
I've seen the Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg videos. I think they should be required viewing for every adult of voting age in this country, because seeing those two videos provides context for foreign policy decisions we need to vote on. I can even see the usefulness of "mechanized death" videos that try to make a point with immortal 16-year-olds, provided the footage is anonymous and separated by a healthy number of years.
However, I can also see the difference between a major newsworthy event that should inform foreign policy and two ghouls in uniform getting their sick little jollies at the expense of grieving parents. Sick minds like these need doctors and asylums, not badges and guns.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
of an 18 YEAR OLD ADULT
Sorry, what?
The way you're phrasing it, it has more in common with a voyeuristic paparazzi taking photos of a celebrity sunbathing in their fenced back yard. Not following?
1) The scene of an accident is not often "public". It gets cordoned off pretty quickly by police. Police officers taking pictures of her body for personal purposes was a breach of duty - and dignity.
2) The woman was dead. It was not an 18-year-old woman, it was the body of a deceased loved one (to someone); once you die, "ownership" of your body goes to your next-of-kin. Pretty sure the cops didn't get the family's permission.
Note: I'm not speaking in defense of the family, here. I think they should probably just get over it: there are surely bigger fish to fry, though I suppose they're doing their part to get rid of these poor LEOs.
Her indiscretions are not really relevant. Keeping the photos private is consideration to the family, not to her. (I don't think she is likely to issue a preference one way or the other.)
There are still some expectations to privacy on public land. For example, putting a movie cam in the sewer drain to look up people's skirts--not okay. In a way, this is also an instance of taking advantage of an involuntary indecency.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
The "Post anon" checkbox can take focus when you tab from the subject to the message body.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
So, we should further punish the already-grieving family for (what might be) this girl's stupidity? Congratulations, you're a moron.
And no, the problem is not just the source (the cops) but the recipient (her friends and family? Really?). There is /no good reason/ to do this unless you're just trying to be a cruel satanic fuck.
Embracing the opportunity to show the impact of illegal chemicals on driving is FAR different than cops emailing out the photograph as a Halloween joke.
And no, you don't have a right to view the result unless you're a complete fucked-up ghoul.
Unfortunately, the ghouls DO have the right to view. Nobody said free speech was always pretty.
As GP said, the real problem here is that it was police who sent the info out - abusing their positions to do so.
This wasn't about freedom of speech. That BS argument was dispensed with very well by the court. It was about the abuse of privileged information that should not have been released without a court order justifying its release.
And no, ghouls don't have some extra legal rights that trump everyone else's.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
The only expectation of privacy is state level legislation or domicile/department level procedure prohibiting the unauthorized release of crime scene photos.
Hate to break it to you, but that's all the situation boils down to. The officers broke protocol.
It would be no different if the news aired the photos on TV.
How is it abusing a privilege if John Doe civilian citizen has the power to do the same without reprimand?
Whether or not the photos were crime scene evidence will dictate in black and white whether the pictures were able to be released. If they were able to be released, then this is an incident in bad taste.
I know, I'm a jerk.
Yea, for linking to a site that tries to make visitors install one of those malware ".exe"-codecs.
She did have a pre-existing brain injury which was the result of childhood cancer which made her prone to impulsive and reckless behavior.
and she still had a license to drive? go usa lol
Yes you are - it just proves that you are extremely immature and hasn't considered your own mortality yet.
Considering your spelling skills it's also evidence of immaturity.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
And that they were intentionally mailed to the family.
This means that they will be haunted by this for the rest of their lives - as if it wasn't bad enough already.
Journalists and police officers shall always take into consideration if their actions can be harmful on a level where it does more bad than good. If they aren't able to have that kind of empathy then they should change job to something else - like dead animal collection along the roads/railroads.
People in public service that lacks empathy are the most dangerous persons around since they can cause massive amounts of suffering.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Interesting and to me plausible, anyone that can confirm this?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Mr. Zapruder and I feel that this is a dangerous sentiment.
You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
She wasn't drunk. She did have a pre-existing brain injury which was the result of childhood cancer which made her prone to impulsive and reckless behavior.
And why should that matter in the least? I notice you don't mention how she was all coked up either. Or how she managed to get a driver's license despite a debilitating medical condition.
And no, you don't have a right to view the result unless you're a complete fucked-up ghoul.
Well since it happened in public, then yes I do.. if they were taken by a member of the public. But they weren't, they were taken by the police which makes it part of that case file. We don't have a right to see what's in the police file, which is why this is a scandal... the cops who gave away the photos did not have the authority to release that information.
Ah, bollocks. Free speech is meant to protect political speech, denouncers, etc. It doesn't mean you can post everything, unless I can illegally distribute copyrighted movies and call it free speech.
In the US, it's called the Right of Publicity and it's a state law, rather a federal law. While IANAL and so cannot be sure if the appropriate state laws cover this specific case, it's not correct to say that Free Speech covers all.
Dilbert RSS feed
But... but... the pictures were so awesome!
What kind of fucktards do they allow into the police force, anyway? Doesn't that give you pause? And isn't that the real issue here? If those cops weren't scum, the case would not have come about. So why allow scum to police people, and how to change it? How would one make the police force (or the military for that matter) a no go area for character dwarfes, while attracting people where, uhm, you don't have to wash your soul after each time you had contact with them, or heard about them in the news? I wonder.
You're wrong. There are no limitations on free speech. Our Constitution is not intended to protect some particular kind of speech, political or other. In fact, it's not designed to protect the free speech of citizens at all.
Our Constitution does not grant citizens free speech, it recognizes our right to free speech as an inalienable right. The point of this document is not to call out specific freedoms that people have, rather it's to grant the government certain powers. If it's not specifically mentioned, rights are presumed to reside with the individual or the state in the US (and state constitutions are similarly framed).
In the case where information is generated by government officials (the police), that information is presumed to be in the public domain except in specific circumstances.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
How the hell can anyone here argue that what the cops did was anything but sick and twisted beyond measure.
I have NEVER understood how the death of another person can be FUNNY.
The same goes for the Darwin Awards stuff. We are talking about people who DIE. Their lives end, their loved ones have to bury them in the cold, cold earth and will never see them again.
Also, WHERE is the logic that says that because people do something stupid they DESERVE to die? And suddenly it's actually OK to even make fun of them.
Sure, driving under the influence of cocaine or whatever is very stupid, but who the hell knows what issues that girl had.
That doesn't mean that there aren't particular kinds of speech that you may not engage in. And by "you", I mean the police officers, but it applies to you as well.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Huh? Does maturity require a solemn outlook on a stupid pointless death? We're all going to die some day my friend, no need to go emo or anything. Perhaps fewer accidents would occur if such deaths were ridiculed.
I HASN'T yet seen the correlation of maturity with spelling skills. Seems to be a bit petty honestly. How about a racial slur instead?
From one of the linked articles: "She used cocaine again the night before the accident"
Quite a few sites also mention that her body still had traces of cocaine - some even go so far as to deny that it was 'only her second time' and that she was actually a frequent user.
Uh, perhaps you didn't read what I wrote above carefully. Unless the "particular kinds of speech" you're referring to are specifically prohibited by law (making that law subject to Constitutional review), then that's exactly what it means.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Are saying that you can publish anything you like without legal consequences?
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
And so far I seen no evidence that she wasn't under the influence, your claim is the first and you provide no evidence.
You always get these claims after someone did something bad. Suddenly it is not their fault, the moment a lawyer has been consulted. How odd.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You're wrong. There are no limitations on free speech. Our Constitution is not intended to protect some particular kind of speech, political or other. In fact, it's not designed to protect the free speech of citizens at all.
Our Constitution does not grant citizens free speech, it recognizes our right to free speech as an inalienable right. The point of this document is not to call out specific freedoms that people have, rather it's to grant the government certain powers. If it's not specifically mentioned, rights are presumed to reside with the individual or the state in the US (and state constitutions are similarly framed).
In the case where information is generated by government officials (the police), that information is presumed to be in the public domain except in specific circumstances.
Now it is you who have failed to understand what the constitution has to say about government, and free speech. The first amendment is about prohibiting the government from taking any action against our various rights, including free speech. It does not however recognize any right to anything where that right impinges on other individuals rights. Free Speech is only free when the act of speaking does no harm that would not otherwise have come to pass. If you Bully and taunt someone , to the point of loss for example, then you are responsible for the consequences. The first amendment merely codifies the fact that the government has no standing to complain about anything anyone says. That does not mean that individuals cannot make such complaint, and under those circumstances, the government is justified and required to act on behalf of the individuals, and in their best interests. Up until that point however, the government has no right to act, and our government is supposed to be explicitly prevented from pro-active action by the constitution.
A good way to paraphrase is: The government may punish individuals for what they say, but it must not take action to prevent them from ever saying it in the first place
Censorship is inherently contrary to democracy, because the only way a democracy can function is with an informed electorate, Hence a democracy with censorship is not really a democracy, but rather more of an aristocracy, or worse: a farce.
-=Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
QFT.
See 9th amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
If it's not in the constitution, it doesn't mean you don't have a certain right -- it means the government wasn't given the power to take it away.
There's nothing dignified about being dead. Also, making a picture of someones stuff when it is in a public place does not usually require permission from the owner, so the corpse-ownership thing doesn't really make much sense.
the "serve" part doesnt mean to serve up photos
And nobody stopped you from opening your mouth and saying what you will. Or picking up a pen and writing what you will. But surely you can't tell me that the Framers intended for government officials to have the right to take pictures of people who died in the most horrific of ways, taken in the line of duty, and send them around as a sick joke, resulting in a family being terrorized by anonymous internet fucktards with a barrage of photos of their dead daughter?
Surely you can't tell me that this was what they meant by Free Speech?
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom of Action, and doesn't mean that a sick action like disseminating pictures of dead bodies for use as a part of a harassment campaign or as a demented prank is protected speech. Furthermore, there are other rights in the Constitution that inherently abridge each other when they run up against each other.
There has to be a legal process to balance these rights against each other when enforcing one person's right would infringe on another person's right. It doesn't mean you don't have the right to Freedom of Speech, it just means your rights have to be abridged somewhere around where the next man's rights begin.
Caught between a porsche and a hard place.
I see the point of being respectful, and to possibly protect the identity of the individual in a crime until the relatives can be notified is one thing, but to play the 'privacy' card over such an event. I'm sorry I died in a public place. There is no such thing as privacy in a public place. People have won cases regarding the red light cameras over such nonsense. Go driving around naked in your car, and see if you have privacy then. I bet you just might get a ticket for 'public' indecency.
Better start searching the internet, because if anybody else snapped photos they should be dealt with as well. After all you just can't pick and choose who can break the law. I know you do. Especially if they are 'too big to fail', or know people. Freaks.
Yes. So long as it isn't unlawful to do so, such in the case of libel.
It's relevant because she caused her own death through her own stupidity. It's no different than the publicity given by the Darwin awards.
I think the officers involved should have been given medals, because they probably saved countless other lives by putting the pictures out there. Those pictures serve a greater good if another druggie with ideas of stealing a car and driving recklessly sees them. Perhaps they will think twice before pulling something like that, saving their own life and possibly the lives of innocent bystanders as well.
Bullshit. They found cocaine in her system. Cancer is not treated with cocaine.
Also, if she really had some preexisting condition that was so serious, why wasn't she in a mental hospital? Why didn't her family keep her under better watch? If she didn't have any condition aside from being a dope fiend (which is likely), then the blame is solely on her. If she did have mental problems that the family knew about, then the blame lies solely on them.
My tax dollars paid for the taking and processing of those photographs.
They should be public property anyway.
You don't recall correctly: http://www.nikkicatsouras.net/
The car is clearly a Honda, so I'd say that throws into doubt the rest of your recollections. Maybe next time you want to check your facts before you go posting your drivel.
Maybe you should check *your* facts before criticizing others - the car she was driving was in fact a Porsche 911 Carrera. The Honda was the car she struck before crossing the median and colliding with the toll booth. You'd know that if you'd actually read anything about the accident instead of just assuming things from one photograph.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Ah, the censor's best friend; the person who is for free speech in the abstract, but whenever it is put to the test, finds a reason for it not to apply.
Publishing is an action, and it is indeed covered under freedom of speech and of the press. You can't rely on the speech/action dichotomy here.
Free speech has had restrictions from the start. You can test this out by yelling fire in a theater and see what the police do to you. You could also create a hit list on the internet of abortion doctors and put in big bold letters "Kill These People" and see what the police do to you. You could also redistribute images you have no right to and watch what the civil courts do to you.
Also, you can't assume anything about the copyright status of material generated by government officials unless it's the federal government or a state where you KNOW they have laws requiring material be public domain. The law varies from state to state and even finer grained from city to city. So it's really the opposite of what you've posted. In the case where information is generated by government officials, that information is presumed to be copyrighted except in specific circumstances.
The thing that's really important to the government is to protect the privacy of protected class criminals. The only gore you're allowed to see is "docudrama" shit on TV where they reverse the races of the perpetrators.
Seastead this.
Exactly. Thus, everything except unlawful stuff != no restrictions.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Child Porn.
May the Maths Be with you!
I do not know whether those three things should or should not dictate if a photo should be public, but they do increase the benefit of making them public, in a sort of "scare them straight" way.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
You're wrong. There are no limitations on free speech.
FIRE!!!!!
I'm sorry - was this theater crowded?
Sure. I can agree with that. The girl paid for her crimes with her life. The parents paid for theirs by burying their teenage daughter.
The only ones who haven't been held responsible yet are the cops on the scene.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
My willingness to agree to this is contingent on one thing: that we also require the voting adults in question to watch videos of Predator drone strikes, the aftermath of bombings in civilian areas, and so forth. Showing atrocities and horrific events is (or can be) important, but if you only show the consequences of one side's actions, you're not informing or "providing context", you're pushing propaganda by trying to excite people's desire for revenge.
Certainly. I completely agree with you. I'm always in favor of more information to the voters, not less. We intentionally don't cover military funerals any more, nor de we allow actual reporting from the war theater as we did in WWII and Vietnam. The Pentagon put these policies in place intentionally to keep the voters at large in the dark.
It's outright treason against Jefferson's legacy, and it dishonors the soldiers who gave their lives. It's shameful.
We absolutely should show ALL of it.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Wrong. Freedom of speech is freedom from responsibility - it protects not only the act of speaking, but from being punished for it.
The thing is, freedom of speech is selective; it's purpose is to protect political (or artistic) speech, but it is limited in other cases, like libel or in this case, it might be protected by Personality Rights.
Few people, including you, seem aware that their precious Freedom of Speech is ENTIRELY contained within the clause "Congress shall make no law ...".
No, not anything you like. You must have the right to publish whatever it is you're trying to publish. In this case, the information we're talking about is public domain, created with taxpayer dollars. If you're talking about simply publishing public domain information, there's no issue of libel unless you use the images to say something defamatory that is untrue.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
I need a better word for "morally bankrupt," "ethically callous," "ghoulish behavior." Have at it, Roget. :-)
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I was only addressing free speech wrt government, not anything to do with impinging on other individuals' rights. What one can be criminally prosecuted for and what one can be sued for are two completely different things, and I'm discussing more the former. Well, not exactly prosecution, but government control of public domain information that effectively creates a criminal situation if you violate the order where there ought not be one.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
There is...it's called a civil suit. If the family felt injured, they're free to sue. In the meantime, the government has to sit this one out in my view. It's public information, pure and simple. You may say it shouldn't be allowed because it's a sick joke. You may also feel the same way about Piss Christ , or some other artist's piece exhibiting macabre humor collecting all sorts of gory photos taken throughout history and placing them in some context.
One underlying point of free speech is this: no one has the right to not be offended. If you don't like something, speak up and say so; the remedy against those who misuse free speech is more free speech, not inviting jack-booted thugs to come in and do thought control.
So what is the appropriate punishment for these officers? Upon discovery of their misdeed, what would happen to them? They could get fired or suspended. They could be sued by the deceased girl's family (even if they win, that's no fun). They could be vilified and despised by society. That's enough, don't you think? Do we really need to get the pitchforks and make an example of them? Yes, it was insensitive. Yes, they're embarrassed and ashamed. Should they be allowed to continue their lives now, or shall we make it so they are placed in an unrecoverable position because they made a stupid mistake?
What kind of person answers yes to that last question? Now ask yourself: is that the kind of person you want to be?
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
I was only addressing free speech wrt government, not anything to do with impinging on other individuals' rights. What one can be criminally prosecuted for and what one can be sued for are two completely different things, and I'm discussing more the former. Well, not exactly prosecution, but government control of public domain information that effectively creates a criminal situation if you violate the order where there ought not be one.
One can be criminally prosecuted for infringing another persons rights. Hence the link to the Phoebe Prince case, which is directly to the heart of the controversy, and clearly within the governments ability to prosecute. This is one of those cases where the defense will try to argue free speech, but there is no first amendment restrictions because the government is clearly prosecuting on behalf of a victim, where the victim lost some of their "inalienable rights" due to the defendants' actions. The government is not prohibited from meting justice as a result of the first amendment prohibitions, because the government is in no way trying to restrict free speech for anyone's ends except Phoebe Prince as a private individual.
-=Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
And this just became one of the "specific circumstances" in which the information is no longer public domain. Don't like it? Thank the asshole police who sent decapitated-dead-girl photos to their friends as pranks.
Also, you're wrong about "free speech" being unrestricted. The U.S. Supreme Court has created restrictions based on reasonable time, manner, and place. "Hate speech" will get you prosecuted. So will harassment. So will violation of national security laws. Don't like it? It's the most free of any country on the planet; Canada doesn't even allow books to be published when someone gets offended by the content.
First post on slashdot, probably last, not gonna bother signing up.
First, thanks for taking the time to reclaim your comment.
Second, while I'm not sure of why the OP thought the drug issue mattered, I can tell you why I think it might:
This has been argued mostly on the lines of educating young people about the dangers of driving fast, and the level of privacy to be expected there. But if this relates to serious drug usage, the question is, what steps are appropriate to educate young people about knowing when drugs are making family and social problems worse, or recognizing bad coping strategies before they snowball. What's appropriate to do to reduce traffic fatalities that are likely to always exist in some numbers so long as inexperienced drivers have to learn somehow, and what's appropriate to reduce illegal drug related deaths where we already have taken steps such as criminalizing the behavior, may not be the same thing. We (as a society) have been pushing cops to reveal bad consequences of illegal drug use as part of what are ostensibly education programs - for example the various timelapse photos of prostitutes busted multiple times while they are also meth addicts. I'm not at all certain that's what the OP was implying, but maybe that's a real issue.
Who is John Cabal?
y'all niggas posting in a troll thread.
The photos were taken in a public place, ergo they are not "private" in any legal sense, unless they are of the same nature as other pictures taken in public but deemed private (like "up-skirt" voyeur photos). But a general photo of a traffic accident, no matter how gory, like those on display at the link at the top? Not private.
That's not to say that the officer's behavior was socially acceptable. It was certainly offensive, disrespectful to the family involved and not professional at all. Apologies and discipline are in order, but not lawsuits.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
human beings, in general, suck
the error is in thinking the police are some special class of human beings, somehow more pure than regular folk, or somehow less pure than regular folk
people are constantly viewing classes of people: politicians, policemen, foreigners, as some sort of alien species, and then deduce all sorts of alternately hilarious/ outrageous statements about politicians/ policemen/ foreigners, like your statement
statements that, at their root, owe their profound stupidity by arguing from the point of view that this class of people is somehow immune to simple basic failings in simple human nature
folks: as soon as you talk about "us" versus "them", you lose. you lose the ability to say anything useful or intelligent. politicians, businessmen, lawyers, police: they sit on a toilet just like you, they have strange warts with hair sticking out just like you, there is, in fact, nothing special about them apart from you. so stop arguing with the idiotic assumption that they are above rules or bound to special rules when you try to say something about "them"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
some families, when asked, are perfectly willing to let personal details about the death of a loved one be used to prevent future such tragedies
in fact, as a tribute to the life of a loved one, its entirely moral, appropriate, and a way to turn a tragedy into a positive contribution to society
like organ donation: something good coming out of something bad. except instead of your personal organs being donated by your family, your family is donating your personal information
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I never said you have the right to not be offended - I find that concept rather scary, since there is something out there that will offend everyone. This situation is about a very different thing than "that picture of Jebus offended my religious sensibilities". And I never suggested that pitchforks were the correct response to any sort of misdeed. If they lose their jobs, and aren't shielded from a civil suit, and face public shame, I think that's more than sufficient punishment - just because what they did was wrong doesn't mean that I think it requires jail time or that their lives be ruined. In fact, there are very few crimes that should really ruin people's lives.
Of course there are limitations on free speech. To pretend otherwise you must be either ignorant or disingenuous. The most commonly cited (and obvious) example is the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" bit of Schenk v US. Granted, that's since been modified, but even the current case law (Brandenburg v Ohio) recognizes that if speech is "directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action" then it can be prohibited. This is aside from laws on slander and fraud... no limitations on free speech? What are you smoking?
But there's no way you can say you can do XYZ, but only if your motivation is socially acceptable, and doesn't bother anyone...
Have you by any chance seen our nation's pornography laws? :-)
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
OK, responding seriously this time and going by the black letter without resorting to "value" judgements, we don't need to write laws.
The officers on the scene did not have the authority to release the photos. The officers are already in violation of department policy. They're already guilty of a fireable offense. Since the officers are outside of policy, they lose the immunity against private lawsuits. The city is now also culpable because the police violated written policy, hence the lawsuit.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
After seeing the video Wikileaks released today, we can no longer say the anonymous coward doesn't have a point.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Not following this argument...who's "inalienable rights" were violated here? The dead girl's?
If you're talking about her family, then I think you'd have a better case against the 4chan lurkers that forged fake emails with the pictures and harassed them than officers who mailed them around. Again, let's be clear--we're talking about a criminally prosecutable offense here, not departmental action, or civil suits. So, if I'm reading you right, you think the officers are less culpable in terms of harassment (or whatever other criminal law you think they violated) than the heartless pranksters that actually did directly harass the family members?
If I got your point of view correctly, that's crazy. I could see the argument made against those that directly harmed the family members. What the officers basically did was make a bad joke in horrendously poor taste, but I don't think they set out to hurt the family, and any pain that was done to that family was directly caused by someone else. To blame the officers for that is a bit (a bit) like blaming the knife manufacturer when someone gets stabbed with a steak knife.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Ah, well you need to be more specific in your tone...I interpreted the statements you made in your last post as support for the idea that these officers should be criminally prosecuted (and perhaps crucified). I do not think I was alone in that interpretation of what you wrote.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
No, I don't like it. And I suspect if it were reviewed by a higher court it would (and should) get overturned.
No, I'm not. In general, it is unrestricted, meaning that it is only to be limited in certain specific ways.
The framers did not view law so much as a list of prohibited actions as a clear boundary defining an open ground of freedom. In other words, the law exists not to prevent citizens from doing certain things, but rather to clearly delineate what is illegal so that citizens may know what they may do within that open ground without fear of government prosecution.
That's what I mean by "unrestricted"—unless specifically reserved for government in some way, free speech is indeed so.
Though you are sadly right in many cases, I do not agree with this (and I do not think you are as right as you perhaps think you are). I believe previous interpretations of the Constitution support my view as well, that generally speaking (hehe) speech is closer to thought than to action. So when dealing with matters of free speech, I need some overriding specific reason to equate the term speech with action, rather than thought.
Allow me to try this experiment on your quote above to illustrate. With this substitution, you would have written: "Hate thought" will get you prosecuted. Are you comfortable with that now? (I'm not.) Can you clearly delineate for me why this is a less valid substitution than "hate action"? (I can't.)
These are actions, not thoughts.
The US is arguably the most free country. How best to keep it so? Also, is merely being the "most free" good enough, or should we strive to be as free as possible without reasonable boundaries? What are those boundaries?
I hope the example of Canada you provide is not intended to make me feel that we are somehow lucky in the US by comparison. That we allow publication of offensive books is as it should be, it's not some special privilege; all humans deserve to live in this kind of society. For me, freedom is not bound by patriotism; I would just as soon argue for more Canadian (and North Korean, and Iranian, etc) freedom as I would for American.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Should have used "depraved."
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
This decision was released on January 29th. I'm sorry, but after almost three months, it ceases to be "stuff that matters."