Crime scene privacy bill in Newton

[shortylickens]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/conn-lawmakers-pass-newtown-privacy-bill-article-1.1363687


I am of two minds about this. One part tells me that victims privacy should generally be protected and its not necessary to reopen ugly times especially if it serves no good.

The paranoia in me says what if some unscrupulous government employees at any level use this to hide things the general public should have access to?

When shootings like this happen it IS a matter of public record and the people have a right to know what went on. I dont like the idea of important info being shuffled away cuz simply cuz its embarrassing or is needed for "national security" or some other nonsense. That sets a bad precedent which could easily be abused by any number of people.

 

[woolfe9998]

This will fuel conspiracy theorists, but I could care less about them. The main reason people want to see these photos is lurid/morbid curiosity. I strongly oppose the media being able to exploit the murder of children to get people to tune in.

No one needs to see these photos.

 

[cwjerome]

This will fuel conspiracy theorists, but I could care less about them. The main reason people want to see these photos is lurid/morbid curiosity. I strongly oppose the media being able to exploit the murder of children to get people to tune in.

No one needs to see these photos.

Something like this should really be on a "need to know" basis. I don't see why everyone has some huge right to see any and every photograph taken by law enforcement.

 

[Craig234]

There is a tradeoff, there is value to the sunlight of the public being able to hear 9/11 calls and such.

There's a mystery now over what happened with the killing of the suspect related to the Boston bombers, where there are inconsistencies in how he got shot.

But the media is shameless in their exploitation of these things, they've played 9/11 calls over and over for nothing but the sensationalization and exploitation and it is harmful to people's rights of privacy in my opinion. On balance I lean towards restricting this from media publication, but do want some sunlight available, and when something is controversial for legitimate reasons, there is justification for public debate.

It's hard to design a system which lands in the middle between those two.

In cases such as assassination there's a special need for public access in some cases.

OJ Simpson was a very exploited and hyped trial, but there was use in the public having access to information to come to their own opinions.

In the case of Newtown, I'm glad to see the photos withheld.

 

[Murloc]

privacy laws here forbid writing any names or posting any photo about any crime.
I find that the american habit of posting pics and names of arrested persons is a gross violation of privacy.
Also the TV just wants to exploit what they get, they don't care about real information.

Defense lawyers can access everything so I think that's enough. If useful for the public, I'd release the images and data with faces and names cancelled after the investigation has concluded.

 

[smackababy]

There is a tradeoff, there is value to the sunlight of the public being able to hear 9/11 calls and such.

There's a mystery now over what happened with the killing of the suspect related to the Boston bombers, where there are inconsistencies in how he got shot.

But the media is shameless in their exploitation of these things, they've played 9/11 calls over and over for nothing but the sensationalization and exploitation and it is harmful to people's rights of privacy in my opinion. On balance I lean towards restricting this from media publication, but do want some sunlight available, and when something is controversial for legitimate reasons, there is justification for public debate.

It's hard to design a system which lands in the middle between those two.

In cases such as assassination there's a special need for public access in some cases.

OJ Simpson was a very exploited and hyped trial, but there was use in the public having access to information to come to their own opinions.

In the case of Newtown, I'm glad to see the photos withheld.

What exactly was the public use in the OJ trial being publicized? So, the media could paint Simpson as guilty and even after acquittal, still condemn him to being guilty. The same thing happened in the Casey Anthony trial.

There is no value, outside of 'entertainment', to having highly publicized trials. At least, during them. If you want to release the information of the trial afterwards, go ahead. Personally, I think there should have been a media blackout on Columbine and every school shooting afterwards.

But, as a society, we idolized the people who commit these types of crimes. We can name every school shooter, but who here (without googling) can honestly name a single victim? Can you name the Boston bombers? What about any of the victims? We, as a society, care more about the shooter than the victims. That is why we have such violent behavior other countries aren't as prone to.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'm more concerned with protecting the names of innocent people who may be erroneously accused of a crime. There are many examples of this, the Boston bombing being the most recent obvious example. How many people were plastered all over the place, erroneously, and labelled as suspects?

There's a point where the public's need to know things should not overrule an individuals right to not have their lives completely ruined by speculation.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would reckon that lurid and prurient interests catered to by the media is the result of the fact that people are leading artificial and meaningless lives. Having been traumatized as children we are drawn like moths to tragic situations where we can tickle and experience vicariously some shadow of the vitality we once experienced ourselves.

 

[Anarchist420]

Just more evidence indicating that it didn't happen.

 

[dank69]

This is another reason to believe that it didn't happen.

Try to imagine what it would be like to see images of your dead child posted all over TV and internet. If you can't imagine that, try to imagine what your parents would feel if they saw images of your dead body plastered all over the TV and internet.

 

[woolfe9998]

Just more evidence indicating that it didn't happen.

Or it's evidence indicating that people do not want images of dead children exploited in the media to satisfy people's lurid curiosity.

Nah, I'm pretty sure we should ignore the obvious and take this as evidence of a conspiracy instead. Especially when the conspiracy seems to support our fringey political beliefs.

 

[Mursilis]

This will fuel conspiracy theorists, but I could care less about them. The main reason people want to see these photos is lurid/morbid curiosity. I strongly oppose the media being able to exploit the murder of children to get people to tune in.

No one needs to see these photos.

So you trust gov't to make that call? I don't. Next time some minority is killed in an encounter with law enforcement, will you be happy if the local police chief says the pictures and video of the incident have been destroyed out of concern for the victim's family?

To all the posters saying the media shamelessly exploits this sort of thing in most cases, you're completely correct. That being said, we're starting down one heck of a slippery slope here.

 

[Pantoot]

Or it's evidence indicating that people do not want images of dead children exploited in the media to satisfy people's lurid curiosity.

Nah, I'm pretty sure we should ignore the obvious and take this as evidence of a conspiracy instead. Especially when the conspiracy seems to support our fringey political beliefs.

I am not a conspiracy kind of guy, but take a look at what has happened out in Santa Monica. You don't think if the govt had access to a picture like:

(their circle, caption says:The gunman, carrying what appears to be an assault rifle (circled), enters the library.)

You would see it, despite the children's privacy?

 

[velillen]

Try to imagine what it would be like to see images of your dead child posted all over TV and internet. If you can't imagine that, try to imagine what your parents would feel if they saw images of your dead body plastered all over the TV and internet.

You mean the same parents who plastered themselves all over the news and with politicians for "gun control". Sorry but the parents havr been way worse then showing a picture of the gunman with an actual gun.

And my parents would be disgusted with me if I used the death of a child for personal gain

 

[Craig234]

You mean the same parents who plastered themselves all over the news and with politicians for "gun control". Sorry but the parents havr been way worse then showing a picture of the gunman with an actual gun.

And my parents would be disgusted with me if I used the death of a child for personal gain

How sick is it of you to call not wanting other parents to lose their children personal gain?

And twisted you are outraged over THAT rather than over the motive of their opponents being gun profits.

The NRA is a gun manfacturer-funded lobbying organzation to protect their sales.

 

[woolfe9998]

So you trust gov't to make that call? I don't. Next time some minority is killed in an encounter with law enforcement, will you be happy if the local police chief says the pictures and video of the incident have been destroyed out of concern for the victim's family?

To all the posters saying the media shamelessly exploits this sort of thing in most cases, you're completely correct. That being said, we're starting down one heck of a slippery slope here.

Who said anything about "destroying" photos? The photos are evidence. That is a straw man as it isn't the law that is described in the OP's subject article nor is it what I suggested.

 

[dank69]

You mean the same parents who plastered themselves all over the news and with politicians for "gun control". Sorry but the parents havr been way worse then showing a picture of the gunman with an actual gun.

And my parents would be disgusted with me if I used the death of a child for personal gain

"Crime scene photos" means pictures of the aftermath to me. Not sure why you think it means photo of the perp holding a gun.

 

[Mursilis]

Who said anything about "destroying" photos? The photos are evidence. That is a straw man as it isn't the law that is described in the OP's subject article nor is it what I suggested.

What you suggested was "No one needs to see these photos." No one means NO ONE, does it not? Who gets to make that call, and on what basis?

 

[dank69]

What you suggested was "No one needs to see these photos." No one means NO ONE, does it not? Who gets to make that call, and on what basis?

That's a pretty pedantic argument. Are you not able to infer from the context that "No one needs to see these photos" meant "the general public does not need to see these photos"?

 

[Mursilis]

That's a pretty pedantic argument. Are you not able to infer from the context that "No one needs to see these photos" meant "the general public does not need to see these photos"?

I assume he meant what he said. Why require the reader to infer your intent instead of stating it directly?

 

[dank69]

I assume he meant what he said. Why require the reader to infer your intent instead of stating it directly?

Because it's not worth it to try to think about all the ways our words can be twisted in order to make it seem like we are saying something we are obviously not saying? Why you would assume the most extreme interpretation of his statement is the correct one is baffling to me.

 

[woolfe9998]

That's a pretty pedantic argument. Are you not able to infer from the context that "No one needs to see these photos" meant "the general public does not need to see these photos"?

That would be what I meant. Thank you for not being obtuse.

Mursilis, if you were at all confused, you may have taken note of my previous post where I stated that the photos should not be destroyed because they are "evidence." Evidence is meaningless if literally no one can see it. I don't have a problem with law enforcement, the courts and/or the victim's immediate families viewing the photos. I just don't want them released to the general public because it is morbid and serves no constructive purpose.

 

[smitbret]

This will fuel conspiracy theorists, but I could care less about them. The main reason people want to see these photos is lurid/morbid curiosity. I strongly oppose the media being able to exploit the murder of children to get people to tune in.

No one needs to see these photos.

No one NEEDS to see them, but EVERYONE has the right to. Your motivations for viewing are completely irrelevant. If you are so outraged by the media using it for exploitation then be outraged at the media not the people that protect your right to be informed.

 

[woolfe9998]

No one NEEDS to see them, but EVERYONE has the right to. Your motivations for viewing are completely irrelevant. If you are so outraged by the media using it for exploitation then be outraged at the media not the people that protect your right to be informed.

So the victims have no right to privacy? The right of people to satisfy their lurid curiosity trumps that? You haven't articulated a single reason why there is any benefit to such photos being released to the public. Not one.

You claim people have the "right." That is either a legal right or a moral right. I don't see a legal right. It isn't about press freedom since this law doesn't restrain the press. It only restrains the police from releasing the photos. If the press comes into possession of them, they can release them.

If it's a moral right, then people's motives for wanting to see them, and whether any constructive purpose is served, is highly relevant. You don't have an unqualified moral right to satisfy your lurid curiosity at the expense of others' privacy. The notion that you believe you have the "right" to know things which are private to other people is quite frankly offensive. There are tons of things in this world that you have no "right" to know, and this strikes me as one of them.

 

[Kadarin]

Or it's evidence indicating that people do not want images of dead children exploited in the media to satisfy people's lurid curiosity.

Nah, I'm pretty sure we should ignore the obvious and take this as evidence of a conspiracy instead. Especially when the conspiracy seems to support our fringey political beliefs.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy here, but there are definitely fishy things about the incident that should be addressed: http://theconservativetreehouse.com...-shooting-discrepancies-not-conspiracies-yet/