Biggest SHOCK of the day!

[CoasterMatt]

Well, not really...

FEMA Accused Of Censorship

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When U.S. officials asked the media not to take pictures of those killed by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, they were censoring a key part of the disaster story, free speech watchdogs said on Wednesday.

[alphabassettgrrl]

It's a fine line between respect for the dead and their living relatives, and censorship. It's true that nobody wants to find out Uncle Harry's dead by seeing his face on the evening news.

There's also a difference between showing distance shots of the dead, and showing an ultra-close-up.

I think they've actually done quite a job showing the scope of the disaster, even without seeing the fields of the dead. It's clear it's a nightmare down there.

What I do want to see is- people being fed. People being housed. People clearing the streets of debris and rebuilding the city. I'm sure we'll get there, just a matter of time.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

It's a fine line between respect for the dead and their living relatives, and censorship.

No fine line here, as I see it. Big bold line that says no government agency should be dictating what can and can't be shown by the media. You may disagree with the media outlets' decission to show images you find objectionable, but that's their decission to make.

[Name]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

No fine line here, as I see it. Big bold line that says no government agency should be dictating what can and can't be shown by the media. You may disagree with the media outlets' decission to show images you find objectionable, but that's their decission to make.

Unless of course they are caskets being drapped by an american flag coming back from Iraq.

Of course, even that is something that govt can't really stop from being printed, they can just deny access to the area's on the military bases where shots of those caskets can be taken.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

No fine line here, as I see it. Big bold line that says no government agency should be dictating what can and can't be shown by the media. You may disagree with the media outlets' decission to show images you find objectionable, but that's their decission to make.

This may vary from state to state, but this might violate some privacy laws. I know my company is negotiating releasing historic photos some of which include dead bodies to a historical society and is spending a great deal of time securing releases to do so.

Do you think I should be allowed to publish your name, social security number, and address if I found it in a public place?

[scaeagles]

So asking is censorship?

[mousepod]

It depends how they "ask".

€uro - I'm surprised by your experience. I didn't realize that the dead had privacy. Can our legal eagle Prudence weigh in on this please?

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by mousepod

It depends how they "ask".

€uro - I'm surprised by your experience. I didn't realize that the dead had privacy. Can our legal eagle Prudence weigh in on this please?

Ur, okay. Keep in mind this is "black letter law" -- or "generic" law -- which may differ in specific areas.

While the dead might not have privacy, the living do.

In torts this summer we read a case about a newspaper sued for taking pictures of a gang-related gunshot victim. The newspaper was doing a piece on gang violence. They took pictures of his ER treatment (keeping the mother out of the room while they did so) and then took pictures and recorded statements the mother made while she was grieving over his freshly deceased body, and then I think took pictures of the dead body after she'd left. The paper was sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and of the three examples of conduct, they got in trouble for the first two. What we were supposed to learn is that when the paper's treatment of the victim directly impacted a relative who was physically present, the paper could be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

That doesn't exactly address this situation. However, I offer it as an example of a situation where taking photos of the dead was an issue due to the impact on the living. (It also may be why those "stories from the ER" sorts of shows are now re-enactments and not live.) There could well be other examples either outside tort law or under the specific laws of that jurisdiction.

Or not.

[SacTown Chronic]

So many of the people in the area, you know, were eventually going to die anyway, so this--this, heheh, is working very well for them.

[€uroMeinke]

For my situation, the photos are certainly more baout the privacy of the survivors and respecting what is done with images of their loved ones. I beleive there is also some question of copyright, but our primary concern is respect for the families.