Posted on 03/11/2010 11:54:23 AM PST by VRWCmember
ATLANTA — A Georgia judge has barred authorities from releasing crime scene and autopsy photos of a 24-year-old University of Georgia graduate killed while hiking.
...
First Amendment lawyers are watching the outcome of this lawsuit and the bill.
"The photos are awful, but it's also awful to see pictures of people in wars, soldiers fighting or the victims of wars," said New York attorney Martin Garbus. "I don't think there should be any kind of censorship because of awfulness." ...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
And contrary to attorney Martin Garbus's erroneous opinion, it is not censorship for the government to refuse to release crime scene photos to an unrelated third party who wants to publish those photos for profit. Your free speech and free press rights do not entitle you to take the work product of others and publish them for your own enrichment.
The FoxNews story was not nearly as in depth, so posted the CNN story instead. I hate to post CNN stuff, but the CNN reporter produced a much more complete story.
I fondly remember the times when common decency acted as a restraint on human behavior. Now I daily mourn the death of shame in America.
I think the nude, decapitated victim is, through no fault of her own, incapable of weighing in on this one.
So I think the default position would be that she probably would not want photos of her nude, decapitated body circulating.
I know I wouldn’t. There is an attack on so many values going on right now. This one is an attack on whatever dignity the victim has left.
Yes.
There was a time when decency was common. :-/
She probably had family who would prefer to be outraged by these bottom feeders.
You are stating the totally obvious, but in a nutty country that is often necessary. Thanks.
How about because of common decency?
Of course, attorney's like this scum bag don't have such a thing.
Outside of the judicial system, no one "needs" to know this stuff.
Thank the good Lord for us having a sensible and sane Judge in Georgia.
This issue is voyeurism at its worst and not about “awfulness” at all. And it would probably bring pleasure to every perverted killer in the world.
THANK YOU JUDGE!
I’m a bit nauseous at the moment; does Hustler want this pic for pornographic reasons?
BUT a coverup was done in a high profile case by:
1. First releasing DRAWINGS of the body to validate conclusions
2. Classifying photos so that the drawing could be validated
3. Basing the drawings on the memory of a doctor who could not even review the autopsy photos to ensure his memory was correct
4. Saying they witheld the actual photos out of respect to the family.
This “excuse” has been used before to hide evidence of a crime.
She probably had family who would prefer NOT to be outraged by these bottom feeders.
Correction.
I would much rather see a picture of a decapitated Larry Flynt, but prefer that it not be nude.
I know. I'm pretty picky.
All you have to do is read the headline to agree with the judge in this decision assuming you have a soul - then reading that Flynt of Hustler was involved I knew the judge was right. RIP Meredith. :-(
Um, the only people who NEED to see those photos are the people investigating the murder and the jurors who will sit in judgement of the person charged in the crime (and only if the photos hold relevant value with respect to the prosecutions case). The rest of the world doesn’t NEED to see them.
I’d much rather only read about a decapitated Larry Flynt - I don’t NEED to see the photo - ewwwwww!!!!!
This isn’t about covering up evidence.
The guy who wanted these photos was Larry Flynt. It’s clear he was going to publish them to give the sickos who buy his magazine some sort of twisted sexual pleasure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.