Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
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.
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.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
bad taste maybe but illegal???? seems a little, i dont know unconstitutional
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
I wonder if this guy knows about "scanner feeds" where some loner posts what he/she hears on the police/fire/EMS scanner into Twitter or Facebook. Lots of times there's serious injuries there. (Sometimes even the responder departments do this since the reports will all be public later anyway.)
Or what about sports? Would this prevent tweeting about a particularly violent tackle?
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It's striving for some sort of compromise in the face of a rather uncomfortable scenario.
We value free speech and it's a dangerous thing to flirt with the idea of *any* restriction. So to *forbid* anything is just outright unacceptable from the outset.
On the other hand, people are jerks and intentionally or unintentionally do hurtful things that really offer no value whatsoever to public discourse.
So if you care about it and feel compelled to say *something*, this doesn't seem such a strange thing to put out there, even though I can't see it being a good idea even in this form.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
That was less than an hour of that trainwreck of a story appearing, prepare to pay for that!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm now fairly convinced there is some kind of contest going on. "How many postings about 'Obamacare' can you get done in a single day pretending that it has anything to do with the topic on hand".
Seriously. If there was a story about the second coming of Christ, all we'd get to hear from you is how we got Obamacare but Jesus still got holes in his hands.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So the correct way to handle that situation is to take a picture of the dufus that's taking a picture of a body being pulled out of a car, and post a picture of them on social media.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Other parts of the world? Other meaning not....America, I take it? Have you not seen some of the more tasteless subreddits?
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.
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.
[End Of Line]
"...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.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I think you don't understand copyright law.
The guy is right, what have we become?
Agreed AC.
Its hard to imagine how this could *ever* be a law I would support; due to my support for free speech and other principles.
But at the same time, I know that in most cases the posting photos of accident victims, and accidents etc to facebook and twitter is supremely disrespectful and only serves to fulfill the posters own ego and thirst for attention. Its morally indefensible.
It depends. What if those "victims" were shot recently by police? Now it changes, "Oh that could be evidence of police brutality!" What if you're filming people running out of a burning building? Wouldn't YOU like to see YOUR relatives getting out, rather than wondering if they did? What if they are recording medical malpractice on YOUR daughter being handled, wouldn't you rather see/know that than only here "There's nothing we could have done"?
Generally, when there is a ton of injuries, it is a natural disaster or an act of man, either way it is better documented by civilians. This law is basically to create an elite media, call it a "Ministry of Truth", which is only allowed to do first-responding documentation.
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.
...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.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
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.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
copy written
Sigh