Posted on 03/25/2005 12:53:46 PM PST by MatrixMetaphore
ALBANY, N.Y. — New York City's Fire Department must release audiotapes and transcripts of interviews conducted with firefighters who responded to the 2001 terrorist attacks, but it can withhold portions that could cause serious pain or embarrassment, the state's highest court ruled yesterday.
The decision by the Court of Appeals was part of a three-pronged ruling that also determined what portions of 911 calls and dispatch communications must be disclosed by the city.
The ruling came in response to a Freedom of Information request by The New York Times. The newspaper wanted to examine tapes of 911 calls made from the World Trade Center after the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as interviews later conducted with firefighters for an oral history of the tragedy.
Under the decision, the Fire Department would have to return to the state's trial-level court and argue on a case-by-case basis that specific statements by firefighters interviewed for the oral history on the response to the attacks cause pain or embarrassment.
Times counsel David McCraw said the newspaper was pleased with the court ruling on the oral histories, saying they are part of an important record detailing the first impression of responders, which could help the public learn more about what happened that day.
Neither McCraw nor New York City officials could say when the information would be made available.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed a lower-court decision that Fire Department dispatches consisting of factual statements or instructions by personnel should be disclosed. But the high court said any opinions or recommendations expressed during those dispatch calls should be edited out.
The court also said only the operators' side of 911 calls, and not what the callers said, should be disclosed.
Judge Robert S. Smith said that while "the public has a legitimate interest in knowing how well or poorly the 911 system performed that day ... the public interest in the words of 911 callers is outweighed by the interest in privacy of those family members and callers who prefer that those words remain private."
The court also rejected arguments that such privacy protections do not apply to those killed. "We think this argument contradicts the common understanding of the word 'privacy,'" particularly when it comes to the families of the dead, Smith wrote.
So you are "Drew" or "Chris"?
I’m with everyone else in wishing you well! You would NOT believe how many of us here in the lowly Texas Panhandle were absolutely SICKENED as we watched on TV that awful morning! Many of us never had much good to say about New Yorkers until we saw what a brave lot you all are! And those firemen…unbelievable! A contingent of Amarillo firemen went to NYC to help out, too.
One example (of many!) of someone desperate to do SOMETHING to show his support: A kid (no more than 18 or 19) somehow affixed a HUGE American flag to stand in the back of his black pickup truck…he literally drove all over Amarillo with that flag blowing straight back (going as fast as he dared!) from daylight until dark for days afterward! He was interviewed by the TV stations and when asked, all he would say is, “We want those Yankees to know we’re supporting them 150%!” This may or may not have been appreciated by “those Yankees”, but we here understood what he was saying!
Thank you for your comments.
You are amazing. Glad you still here :-)
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.