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."
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
...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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
Now - the officers involved should definitely be held responsible for any damages they caused. As should, frankly, anyone who can be proved to have been using the pictures in a way that caused demonstrable harm. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility.
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.
Unless they uploaded the pictures to 4chan themselves, they can hardly be held responsible for that particular group of abuses. (The department should certainly discipline them, though.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
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.
They could always follow legal precedent established by RIAA lawyers, and file a John Doe lawsuit. They can work out who actually caused the harm once they get to damages.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
If people saw reality more often, I think reality would become less grim as people realize how eggshell life really is.
I wonder to what degree the views that underly this ruling exist outside the US. Photographs of tragedies when published in American newspapers and magazines (or broadcast on TV) are typically from the sanitized category. The reasoning behind that is we don't need to see what happened to know what happened (or less charitably, people prefer human interest stories).
Consider something like a bus bombing. In the US, if a photograph is included it will typically show grief-stricken onlookers, or alternatively, the charred remains of the bus after everything has been cleaned up. Elsewhere, it's not at all uncommon to see multiple photographs showing the blood-spattered carnage in the immediate aftermath.
Granted, the sensibilities of the newsreading public weren't at issue in the case, but still, the ruling does appear to reflect points of view that may not apply elsewhere. And if those views aren't universally held, it stands to reason that decisions related to the publishing of those images (self censorship among them) merit a re-examination. Fragility of life? I think we'd all agree that's an important lesson that needs to be learned. But consider this: the US has been engaged in two wars for years, and I've yet to see anything in the American press that reinforces that lesson, provides evidence of what is really happening, or more generally, reflects the true nature of war.
Is the news coverage of violence and tragedy too sanitized for our own good? If the box office numbers for the "Action-Adventure" genre meant to satisfy the puerile tastes of the movie going public are any indication, I'd suggest it is. How else to explain the attraction and repeated desire to view dramatic re-enactments of something that, according to this judge, is morbid and doesn't deserve to be seen?
My condolences on the loss of your friend. Drive safe and hope for the best. It's the most any of us can do.
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.
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.
Dilbert RSS feed
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.
These images remind us all of our fragile mortality. ...and many people don't like that.
One that hath name thou can not otter
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.
No, it protects you from being punished by the government, there are countless reasons one can be successfully punished in civil court for something that is clearly "protected speech"
You are free to disseminate trade secrets of a corporation you worked for, but they are free to sue the living shit out of you for it.
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.
Just FYI, assuming that it took you a minute to write your post, ~100 people all over the world died in the meantime.
So, yeah, people DIE. It's kinda part of the experience.
My tax dollars paid for the taking and processing of those photographs.
They should be public property anyway.