3 ms·

Whether or not it's a prominent family, the continued distribution of ghoulish photographs of a dead young girl should come with substantial criminal penalties.

Whether or not it's a prominent family, the continued distribution of ghoulish photographs of a dead young girl should come with substantial criminal penalties. There is no possible justification for it - it's not like it's a free speech issue. No family should have to deal with this along with the grieving process.

ineedasername 5y ago
it's not like it's a free speech issue Why is it unrelated to free speech? It seems like it would be a free speech issue if pre-accident images weren't allowed to be published, e.g., in a news article about the accident. I don't see a material difference that would take accident photos out of the domain of free speech. For my part, as a parent, I would never want to look at such photos. I would however be alright with their use, for example in safe driving campaigns in drivers ed courses. I believe some driving courses (specifically against drunk driving) have done exactly that. I'm sure other families would feel differently, but I don't think there's a prima facie case to be made that no family ever would be okay with this and that it would always increase the emotional toll, or never have any benefit. I certainly don't like them being published merely to satisfy the morbid curiosity of random internet folks, but I also don't see how you ban that without potentially running afoul of (US) free speech rights that have strict limits on speech restraints. Obscenity is one of those limits, but the law has continually struggle to find a bright line rule by which to measure such things. At a minimum, that lack of clarity still places this sort of image within the domain of free speech issues.
- javajosh 5y ago
  I don't think a problem with generalizing should get in the way of recognizing what is clearly the case: as described, what happened to that girl and her family was clearly wrong. It was not a free speech issue and no-one claimed it was. The photo was shared simply for ghoulish sensationalism. Under these conditions, this sharing should be harshly penalized. I agree there are problems generalizing, and I'm not trying to write a law. I'm just saying that in this particular case the sharers of that picture are clearly in the wrong, and they should stop or face consequences.
macilacilove 5y ago
If there is any suspicion that the prominent child's death was not an accident, it can very quickly become a free speech issue.
thrown_22 5y ago
[dead]

ineedasername 5y ago

it's not like it's a free speech issue Why is it unrelated to free speech? It seems like it would be a free speech issue if pre-accident images weren't allowed to be published, e.g., in a news article about the accident. I don't see a material difference that would take accident photos out of the domain of free speech. For my part, as a parent, I would never want to look at such photos. I would however be alright with their use, for example in safe driving campaigns in drivers ed courses. I believe some driving courses (specifically against drunk driving) have done exactly that. I'm sure other families would feel differently, but I don't think there's a prima facie case to be made that no family ever would be okay with this and that it would always increase the emotional toll, or never have any benefit. I certainly don't like them being published merely to satisfy the morbid curiosity of random internet folks, but I also don't see how you ban that without potentially running afoul of (US) free speech rights that have strict limits on speech restraints. Obscenity is one of those limits, but the law has continually struggle to find a bright line rule by which to measure such things. At a minimum, that lack of clarity still places this sort of image within the domain of free speech issues.

javajosh 5y ago
I don't think a problem with generalizing should get in the way of recognizing what is clearly the case: as described, what happened to that girl and her family was clearly wrong. It was not a free speech issue and no-one claimed it was. The photo was shared simply for ghoulish sensationalism. Under these conditions, this sharing should be harshly penalized. I agree there are problems generalizing, and I'm not trying to write a law. I'm just saying that in this particular case the sharers of that picture are clearly in the wrong, and they should stop or face consequences.

macilacilove 5y ago

If there is any suspicion that the prominent child's death was not an accident, it can very quickly become a free speech issue.

thrown_22 5y ago

[dead]