Kentucky Bill: Wait an Hour Before Posting Injuries To Social Media (kentucky.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A Kentucky state representative is developing an unusual piece of legislation. It would impose a delay on people posting about an event on social media if the event resulted in serious injury. Users caught violating this law would face fines ranging from $20-$100. It wouldn't restrict media, victims, or first responders — just bystanders. Representative John Carney says, "It's purely my intent to get a discussion going out there, asking people to be more respectful about what they put on social media. We've had some incidents, including one in my community, and I'd hate for anyone to learn about the loss of a loved one through social media."

Opponents of the bill point out the difficulty in determining who qualifies as "media" in the age of social networks, not to mention the potential conflict with the First Amendment. Carney recognizes the difficulty, and says he doesn't intend to push the bill immediately, but notes that he's trying to solve a real problem. Tiger Robinson, a local public safety director, said, "There have been times we've been pulling bodies out of cars and these people are standing there, snapping pictures on their phones to post on Facebook. It's just not right."

Comments

Law or morality?

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy is right, what have we become?

Re:Law or morality?

[Penguinisto]

Sorry, dude - As long as it ain't false+defamatory or a false incitement to panic, the First Amendment says that bystanders can pretty much say whatever they want about whatever they see in public - whenever they want, even while it's still happening.

One would of course hope that bystanders would have enough decency to show at least a basic discretion about it, but if they don't the problem is with the bystanders, not the laws. Maybe try and gently promote a cultural shift that would give the desired outcome, but using the law as a cudgel to enforce discretion in such a public instance is the wrong way to go.

Re:Law or morality?

[darkain]

This. All of this! This very situation came into play during the Boston marathon bombing. The FBI used photo and video content from social media to piece together parts of the scene where they didn't already have their own eyes covering. Authorities and civilians should be working together for a common good, not battling against each other for who has the right to document a situation in public space.

Re:Law or morality?

[msauve]

...and the 2nd Amendment says the people have a right to bear arms. Just as people argue that there are "common sense" infringements of that right, why not similar for the press? For example, I'd like to see perfumed inserts outlawed, just like "cop killer" bullets. To be part of the "free press," should require a journalism degree, just like a license is needed in most states to carry a concealed weapon. Publications should be limited to 10 pages, just like firearm magazines are limited to 10 rounds in some locations. Why not outlaw high speed presses, which amplify the damage done by irresponsible journalists, just as automatic weapons are basically outlawed? It also obviously doesn't cover radio, TV or Internet, since the founding fathers couldn't have imagined those things, so they can obviously be regulated, just like newer firearms.

It's just common sense, and entirely Constitutional based on precedent.

Re:Law or morality?

[Dread_ed]

What if a police officer was beating your kid. With this law in place anyone recording the beating could be taken into custody to prevent the premature dissemination of the video. Oh, and would you look at that, somehow the footage of the police beating that poor dead kid just disappeared.

Yeah, no way this is a bad idea.

Re:Law or morality?

[Dread_ed]

But a police officer would have a perfect reason to detain you if you recorded them beating or shooting someone. Of course they would ostensibly be working for the rights of the family of the person they mangled. You know, ensuring the video didn't get out before it was legal. But then the video gets erased, or the recording device disappears.

This is the last thing we need.

Good luck with that

[redmid17]

Even if the law were to pass and it survive all legal challenges -- and it most certainly wouldn't -- there are always going to be an insensitive idiots. I'm sure the victims would feel a ton better with random people taking pictures and spreading them instead of a news channel or newspaper.

This easily falls in the "Why the fuck would you even bother" category. Seriously, this is the best response you could come up with to an incident in your district? Send out an email to your voter base and write a FB update praising people who respect the privacy and dignity of accident (or crime) victims. It's great because you wouldn't look like an idiot, would appear respectful, and it would have a bit more impact.

This is what we need

[fustakrakich]

I mean, cameras are obviously much more dangerous than guns.

Not only right, it's important

[Schezar]

In what era of human history before now have we had such thorough and widespread documentation of events both wonderful AND tragic. All those camera angles, all those photos, all that video and audio: it's hard to cover something up. Hard to hide evidence. Hard for police to quietly murder a black man and sweep it under the rug.

A person who videos INSTEAD of rendering aid, when their aid is needed, is a shithead.

But what do you expect? 100 people to all somehow help? We naturally now stratify into helpers and documenters. Both are important.

bad taste maybe

[ganjadude]

bad taste maybe but illegal???? seems a little, i dont know unconstitutional

it's a cultural problem, unfixable via tech or law

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a symptom of a deep cultural problem, and I don't think either law or technology is going to fix it. At best, it'll just be another "law nobody knows about" that can be used for selective enforcement.

This need to post every microscopic facet of one's life to Facebook is rather sick, even under less tragic circumstances than a traffic accident. It's something that's badly broken about our narcissistic culture. It's bad enough when it's one's own private data, but when it involves some other human being who didn't agree, and in fact may have just suffered either the worst day of their life, or the last day of their life, it's even worse. It's a symptom of lack of empathy for other human beings.

The only way I see to fix this is long term and cultural, not short term and legal.

summary : Rep SAID he's trolling

[raymorris]

The fine summary at the top of this page says he doesn't intend to actually push the bill to pass and the representative says "It's purely my intent to get a discussion going out there, asking people to be more respectful ".

So yes, he's trying to get a discussion going, aka trolling. That appears to have worked because here we are discussing it.

Re:summary : Rep SAID he's trolling

[AthanasiusKircher]

So yes, he's trying to get a discussion going, aka trolling. That appears to have worked because here we are discussing it.

Why call it "trolling" exactly? A stereotypical "troll" isn't generally interested in "trying to get a discussion going" -- a troll usually wants to avoid substantive discussion and drive things into flamewars and emotional outbursts. In addition, trolls are usually insincere, disrupting reasonable discussion for their own amusement.

Almost none of that is here. Here's a guy whose aim appears sincere and who wants to get a reasonable discussion going on serious topic. He's putting a proposal out there, and perhaps reaction will lead to the development of a better solution. Perhaps his proposal is unworkable and naive, but it's certainly after a fairly reasonable result.

And also, I think most people here would agree that it would be better if lawmakers actually didn't ram through the first ridiculous legislation that comes into their brains, but threw out some ideas, got some reaction, and crafted something more reasonable.

You can criticize him as stupid or naive or ignorant of how the internet or the law works, but "trolling"??

Catch-22

[IonOtter]

Say you record a cop shooting a pedestrian. Straight up, cold blood, didn't like them, went postal, flipped their lid and shot a jaywalker.

If you post the video of the murder right away, you can be arrested and charged.

But if you wait an hour, that gives the murderers time to come up with ways to protect themselves.

Is an official visit any better?

[Archtech]

"...I'd hate for anyone to learn about the loss of a loved one through social media."

Sounds reasonable. But wait a minute - is there any good way to learn about the loss of a loved one? I know from personal experience that the arrival of two regular policemen at your front door in the middle of the night isn't ideal, either.

Something terrible has happened. It can't be undone. I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't actually prefer to read about it on social media, and be able to grieve alone before outsiders began to push in with their expectations and self-conscious caring voices.