Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: eternity

I agree on the constitutional precept. The constitution did not, in my opinion, foresee video images. Nor did the FCC become organized under any constitutional guideline(s). To broadcast or cablecast the images of the deceased without the explicit approval of the next of kin is wrong, if not criminal. Sure, they can shoot the footage and put it on pay-per-view after securing proper permission. Please prove to me that the first amendment allows photographic or video images of corpses. They may speak and write of these things for sure.
This disaster will indeed test us all.


56 posted on 09/09/2005 5:39:33 PM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (Bless those in need this day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: ARealMothersSonForever

Basically it's called documentation. And we as US citizens should demand that. Wouldn't be a bad idea to show the dead returning to Dover AFB either.


66 posted on 09/09/2005 5:43:52 PM PDT by eternity (2 stripes up...crossed rifles underneath. URahhh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

To: ARealMothersSonForever

CNN did show a dead body last night -- the picture was somewhat obscured, although I do not believe that the reason was to obscure the identity of the victim but rather the method of death -- there was blood on the ground, although it was pixellated -- although if you only listened, you would not know whether it was a stabbing/shooting versus, say, collapse from lack of food/water/medicine.

Neither do I know if the authorities had placed this person on the official casualty list (CNN may have said last night -- I wasn't paying that close attention).


103 posted on 09/09/2005 6:07:21 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson