Biggest SHOCK of the day!

[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.