WTF is wrong with Hustler?

[ManBearPig]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/10/meredith.emerson.photos/index.html?hpt=T2

why wont they just leave it alone? man, some sick fucks must read that magazine if they really want to publish these pictures that bad.

 

[Vette73]

Who said they were going to publish them? They just requested them.
Yea they may have but laws to keep things like this will only allow Gov, esp smaller ones, to cover up things. Or at least add fuel to all the nut jobs. Look how open 9/11 was in NY and people are still running nutty over that.

 

[vi edit]

Who said they were going to publish them? They just requested them.
Yea they may have but laws to keep things like this will only allow Gov, esp smaller ones, to cover up things. Or at least add fuel to all the nut jobs. Look how open 9/11 was in NY and people are still running nutty over that.

If the hiker had been 400 pounds and 60 years old do you think the would have requested them?

 

[rivan]

I think they should be freely available. It's too easy for the government to censor stuff as it is. There ARE legitimate scholarly reasons to request the files (and photos as a part of those files).

I also think anyone lacking the basic human decency to request them while working for a publication like Hustler needs to have their priorities examined, and if they were published, I'd hope the public backlash would be extreme.

 

[Vette73]

If the hiker had been 400 pounds and 60 years old do you think the would have requested them?

Maybe, maybe not. Hustler/Flynt publish many things such as John DeLorean and Jerry Fawwell video/pictures and I don;t consider them sexy/good looking. Do you?

What I am saying is the road to hell is paved... type thing. The same type of BS was used to get the patroit act and other rules/laws passed in congress. We should not make it easier for the Gov to censor or control information, but harder.

 

[zinfamous]

I think they should be freely available. It's too easy for the government to censor stuff as it is. There ARE legitimate scholarly reasons to request the files (and photos as a part of those files).

I also think anyone lacking the basic human decency to request them while working for a publication like Hustler needs to have their priorities examined, and if they were published, I'd hope the public backlash would be extreme.

:thumbsup: to both comments

though I would hope that proper backlash would occur before, and to thwart such publication. That should NEVER be allowed to happen.

 

[her209]

Don't want to see a headless body? Don't go looking for one.

 

[zinfamous]

Don't want to see a headless body? Don't go looking for one.

Strangely enough, I believe that her FAMILY has every right to withold the photos of their daughter's mangled body from the public eye.

Is that so crazy?

 

[her209]

Strangely enough, I believe that her FAMILY has every right to withold the photos of their daughter's mangled body from the public eye.

Is that so crazy?

Right, but the House bill introduced makes it illegal for all pictures of crime victims.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Don't want to see a headless body? Don't go looking for one.

Generally I don't expect to see decapitations in Hustler.

 

[Vette73]

Strangely enough, I believe that her FAMILY has every right to withold the photos of their daughter's mangled body from the public eye.

Is that so crazy?

When the photos are of a crime scene shot by the Gov then yes that is crazy IMO.
What if her family was involved in her death, should they have say? If you were brought up on charges and they said pictures and infrmation could not be let out to investagators only your legal team would you be ok with that? How about your legal team is a public defender and you can;t afford anybody else and some law schools want to see the photos and information and help? Sorry you get bob the public defender who has 20 other cases.

Again this is about freedom and how the Gov is taking more and more away on the same idea of "think of the children..." type BS.

Right, but the House bill introduced makes it illegal for all pictures of crime victims.

Yep.

 

[rivan]

Again this is about freedom and how the Gov is taking more and more away on the same idea of "think of the children..." type BS.

The legislation's wording is incredibly broad. A single bruise is enough, based on the snippet in the story. It's totally overreaching.

Edit:

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation promptly denied Hustler's request, agency spokesman John Bankhead said.

"There's no public interest served by these photographs being publicly displayed," he said. "The negative impact on surviving friends and family would be horrific. They had to go through this with the death so to have to go through it again with the pictures ending up on Internet would be incredible."

Says him. I agree with him, when displayed in a venue like Hustler, but I can imagine there would be some public forums where they could be used respectfully in the name of learning.

House Bill 1322 would prevent the release of photographs of the bodies of crime victims that are "nude, bruised, bloodied or in a broken state with open wounds, a state of dismemberment or decapitation," said Chambers.

So if I get into a bar fight and have a bloody nose in my mug shot, I can keep that photo out of the public eye? Sweet.

 

[kalrith]

I think this would fall under the family's right to privacy. The well-known Nikki Catsouras court case was recently won on that very basis (Source).

 

[bignateyk]

Why is this even an issue? The family should be the ones to say whether or not they can be released.

 

[zinfamous]

When the photos are of a crime scene shot by the Gov then yes that is crazy IMO.
What if her family was involved in her death, should they have say? If you were brought up on charges and they said pictures and infrmation could not be let out to investagators only your legal team would you be ok with that? How about your legal team is a public defender and you can;t afford anybody else and some law schools want to see the photos and information and help? Sorry you get bob the public defender who has 20 other cases.

Again this is about freedom and how the Gov is taking more and more away on the same idea of "think of the children..." type BS.



Yep.

If Hustler's intent is to challenge the federal policy of withholding evidence, then that's great.

I agree with everything else, but in a case where the family is in no way suspected of these acts, when is there justification to accept that part of their life-long grief is tied into the idea that these pictures exist, that they would be horrified to find that sick fucks may indeed want to get their jollies off to these pics?

I assume Hustler has the sense that if they were to acquire the photos, they absolutely wouldn't publish them. They're well known for challenging all type of federal censorship and I salute them for that, but what power does the family hold to keep these out of public domain?

Is it simply the notion that any law, regardless of its intent, is wrong?

 

[Vette73]

The legislation's wording is incredibly broad. A single bruise is enough, based on the snippet in the story. It's totally overreaching.

Or even blood.
Then on top of that they only allow "credentialed journalists, lawyers and law enforcement" to view the photos and it has to be at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's headquarters and you can;t make copies.

I see this being thrown out real easy once it gets past the local judges.

 

[zinfamous]

The legislation's wording is incredibly broad. A single bruise is enough, based on the snippet in the story. It's totally overreaching.

Edit:



Says him. I agree with him, when displayed in a venue like Hustler, but I can imagine there would be some public forums where they could be used respectfully in the name of learning.



So if I get into a bar fight and have a bloody nose in my mug shot, I can keep that photo out of the public eye? Sweet.

It seems like the language of the bill is intended to describe deceased victims, though it only states "the bodies of crime victims."

I can see where "body" could be interpreted loosely, though I know nothing of the "legal definitions" that tend to be tacked on to every word.

 

[her209]

Can the pictures be shown in court if John Q. Public can just walk into said courtroom?

 

[bignateyk]

I think they should be open to be viewed by the public at certain specific locations, but noone should be able to make copies of them.

 

[rivan]

If Hustler's intent is to challenge the federal policy of withholding evidence, then that's great.

I agree with everything else, but in a case where the family is in no way suspected of these acts, when is there justification to accept that part of their life-long grief is tied into the idea that these pictures exist, that they would be horrified to find that sick fucks may indeed want to get their jollies off to these pics?

I assume Hustler has the sense that if they were to acquire the photos, they absolutely wouldn't publish them. They're well known for challenging all type of federal censorship and I salute them for that, but what power does the family hold to keep these out of public domain?

Is it simply the notion that any law, regardless of its intent, is wrong?

I empathize with the plight of the family, but I think this is a situation where there is no perfect solution. I don't believe in legislating away a wide swath of freedom in the name of protecting the feelings of a single family.

The trouble with legislating something, then depending on it's INTENT to remain intact is that in 20 years, the people in power aren't going to give a damn who this girl was or why the law was written. They're going to see it as a tool they can use to suppress whatever information they deem fit.

 

[Vette73]

I empathize with the plight of the family, but I think this is a situation where there is no perfect solution. I don't believe in legislating away a wide swath of freedom in the name of protecting the feelings of a single family.

The trouble with legislating something, then depending on it's INTENT to remain intact is that in 20 years, the people in power aren't going to give a damn who this girl was or why the law was written. They're going to see it as a tool they can use to suppress whatever information they deem fit.

:thumbsup:

Or some small town Police/Gov will use it even now for their intrest. Esp one that is written this badly.

 

[rivan]

I think they should be open to be viewed by the public at certain specific locations, but noone should be able to make copies of them.

Even for use in a scholarly application? Even if her face is obscured and they're used in curriculum to teach psychiatric students or law enforcement people - perhaps to educate about her killer?

Here I'm simply playing devil's advocate. I shudder to think what would happen to these if they were freely available on the internet, but I believe legislation should ALWAYS err to the side of freedom.

 

[zinfamous]

I empathize with the plight of the family, but I think this is a situation where there is no perfect solution. I don't believe in legislating away a wide swath of freedom in the name of protecting the feelings of a single family.

The trouble with legislating something, then depending on it's INTENT to remain intact is that in 20 years, the people in power aren't going to give a damn who this girl was or why the law was written. They're going to see it as a tool they can use to suppress whatever information they deem fit.

I agree--but nitpicking: this isn't to protect one specific family, it's to protect all those put in this terrible situation. such laws are generally named after a family, or victim, with the intent that it is applied to others. That is the intent part that doesn't get abused; what gets abused is that it can go beyond protecting families into justifying censorship across the board.

I know that's what you've already said...I'm just dancing around semantics 😀

 

[zinfamous]

Even for use in a scholarly application? Even if her face is obscured and they're used in curriculum to teach psychiatric students or law enforcement people - perhaps to educate about her killer?

Here I'm simply playing devil's advocate. I shudder to think what would happen to these if they were freely available on the internet, but I believe legislation should ALWAYS err to the side of freedom.

I've agreed with everything you said, and this was my first thought as to why these shouldn't be federally censored. (use for training)

and the concern for availability on the internet is legit, but once these are allowed in training manuals or scholarly journals, what's to stop some sick fuck from scanning the images and uploading them to his creepy blog for other sick fucks?

/devil's advocate to devil's advocate.
()🙂

 

[rivan]

I agree--but nitpicking: this isn't to protect one specific family, it's to protect all those put in this terrible situation. such laws are generally named after a family, or victim, with the intent that it is applied to others. That is the intent part that doesn't get abused; what gets abused is that it can go beyond protecting families into justifying censorship across the board.

I know that's what you've already said...I'm just dancing around semantics 😀

In order for the law to be broadly worded enough to cover all such tragic situations, it would almost certainly be worded broadly enough to invite abuse, whether immediate or not.

I simply cannot support government suppression of information (and that includes it's current suppression). It's far too slippery a slope.