Gruesome Photographs: Does the Value to Society outweigh the Invasion of Privacy or Not?

[Mike 03]

Poll question: Gruesome Photographs: Does the Value to Society outweigh the Invasion of Privacy or Not?

As I posted a couple of weeks ago, an appellate court decision ruled that particular grisly photos of a car accident could remain in circulation, in spite of the decedent's family's assertions that they be banned from ever being reproduced in any form.

My bias on this issue tends to be toward the family, but in this case, unlike the torture photos, I do see some value in allowing traffic accident photographs to be shown to driving students. In my experience, there is nothing like horrific pictures to make a person a better driver.

But that's just my opinion. Where do you stand on this issue?

ON EDIT:

I go back and forth. Now, I'm thinking that it is not such a great idea to broadcast these photos. I can't decide. It is so disturbing to see images of death, especially from traumatic injury, maybe it is just not a good idea.

I definitely can understand the family hating the idea.

This is one of those rare situations where I can't figure out what my opinion is.

[Turbineguy]

1. If you need shock value for education

go to a junkyard and look at the stains on the windshield. Let the imagination do the rest.

[MrSlayer]

2. The pics from that crash are quite brutal.

But I see no reason why they shouldn't be public. In fact, I think they should be shown to every high school driving class in the country.

[babylonsister]

3. Show the pics to the class. I haven't seen them, but if

viewing those pictures would make young people think while driving, and possibly avoid a similar fate, I say bring them on.

[Mike 03]

4. Hey Babylonsister.

I can't bring myself to provide a link to the photos. They certainly have made me think very very seriously about my driving habits, and I'm not "young." LOL

I feel it's not my place to post any kind of photos like those, especially here on DU.

[babylonsister]

6. I didn't mean for you to show them. Thanks, and edited for clarity.

I don't want to see them, but I think they should be seen. If they had that affect on you, imagine what kids, who think they're invulnerable, might think? If they only think a little it will have been worth it.

[Mike 03]

19. You know how much I respect and trust you.

If you want me to PM you with the name of the case I would do so. I trust you 100% that your motives are sincere in evaluating the value of thess photos.

In general, I never PM anyone without asking them first.

[canetoad]

5. I cannot vote either way

On one hand the pictures may just be the shock needed to deter some young drivers which is a good thing. On the other, gory, blood and guts pictures often become a nasty and voyeuristic internet porn.

I say in each and every case it should be up to the immediate family as to whether the pictures are published or not.

[rug]

7. The public interest in car wreck photos does not compare to state-sanctioned torture of prisoners.

[TahitiNut]

8. "In my day," when we took driver education, we were required to view movies ...

... produced and distributed by the Ohio State Highway Patrol showing one gruesome accident after another, most in full color. The Ohio State Highway Patrol was famous for those movies.

:shrug:

[Laelth]

9. Photographs are intellectual property.

They belong to the photographer, and they ought to be available for any purpose.

Censorship stinks. Of course, the right to privacy protects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and I suppose a photograph is a kind of search. In some ways, it's also a seizure, but the 1st Amendment trumps the 4th Amendment, generally speaking.

:dem:

-Laelth

[kirby]

10. Who took the photos?

Certainly you realize that the unreasonable search/seizure rights applies to limiting the powers of the Government against us citizens. It has nothing to do with a regular citizen/photographer--it does not apply to Corporations or People, just the Government.

[Mike 03]

12. Highway Patrol and Fatal Accident Collision Unit, I am guessing. NT

[Laelth]

15. I do realize that the Constitution defines and limits the government.

But I do not follow the point you are trying to make. I'd be happy to respond if you would like to clarify.

:dem:

-Laelth

[kirby]

17. My question...

was in my subject line? I was asking who took these photos because that might change everyhing. If it was a Gov't official (such as a police officer) then your search/seizure, or perhaps a right to privacy may exist. But if they were taken by a bystanding photographer, the intellectual property argument might apply. If it was taken by a photojournalist, the 1st amendment might apply. It would very much depend on who took the photos.

[Mike 03]

20. I attempted to answer.

These were crime scene photos taken by the highway patrol Fatal Accident Unit.

Hope that clarifies things.

[Laelth]

22. I saw that. Thanks. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Laelth]

21. I agree that our legal analysis depends on who took the photos.

But only in part. Any law by the government that says the photos can not be published would be censorship and a violation of the 1st Amendment, regardless of who took or owned the photographs. Of course, as I also mentioned, the Courts have always allowed some censorship, in direct violation of the 1st Amendment, if the common good demands censorship.

The OP says, below, who took the photos he was interested in discussing, but I was simply responding as if the OP were talking about any, hypothetical, grisly photos. In this particular case, however, where the government (We the People) owns the photos, I would think they would be subject to release via a Freedom of Information Act request. Information that we collectively own is particularly protected by the 1st Amendment (or should be).

:dem:

-Laelth

[canetoad]

13. Recently, on another thread

the OP was lamenting the apparent death of good, old fashioned 'decency'.

Do you still think it is censorship if say, the victim's family, did not want the pictures released?

[Laelth]

14. If the family owns the photographs, then no. It's not censorship if they choose not to release them.

If I own the photographs and the government, for any reason, tells me that I can't publish them, then yes, that's the definition of censorship.

Sometimes the Courts will allow censorship, though. It's OK for the state to pass a law making it illegal to scream "fire!" in a crowded theater. That's undoubtedly censorship, it's just a violation of our Constitutional rights that the Supreme Court has decided to allow because the common good sometimes outweighs individual rights.

This is a tough case because we have competing Constitutional interests (1st and 4th Amendments).

:dem:

-Laelth

[Deja Q]

16. Ah, but if the photographs are of a crime taking place, which has direct influence of government...

Those pics that the other guy who was referring to the guy who was lamenting the decline of 'decency' were not your average bake sale charity event promotional pictures...

Unlike *'s vision, nothing in life is truly black or white.

[Laelth]

18. Indeed, it's often dangerous to see things in black and white.

I didn't see the "other thread" that has been referenced, and so I can't adequately respond to your comments. I will say, however, that a law prohibiting the publication of pictures (any pictures) is censorship and is prohibited by the 1st Amendment. But, as I also mentioned, our Courts have always allowed the State to censor some forms of speech. Always.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Mike 03]

11. Wow, thank you for your opinions! I am elated to see such response, and the variety of

ideas with respect to this issue.

To answer some prior questions, the photos were taken by the Accident or Crime Scene Unit and, for reasons that are beyond comprehension, emailed all over the place within the next few hours.

There is no rational reason I can think of as to why someone would email these particular pix all over the place.

If you have seen vehicular death photos, you know they are pretty bad, regardless.

I have no idea why these pix in particular have become the nexus of controversy, but I don't want to cop out and say I don't care about this issue, because I DO think this is a serious issue.

[Berry Cool]

23. Aren't we talking about a case in which the photos were not used for "educational purposes"

but were being used merely to torment the parents of an accident victim, who were receiving them in the email disguised as other kinds of messages?

In other words, weren't they merely being used by sickos to taunt the grieving parents and force them to regularly confront images of their dead daughter?

I fail to see how using accident photos for that purpose is of benefit to anyone. And, because there is always going to be some sicko somewhere who will want to use them for that purpose, I believe using them for any purpose is an invasion of privacy. Because the initial intention may have been to use them for good, but sooner or later (probably sooner) they will make their way into the hands of those who only want to do harm, and will be so rapidly disseminated for that purpose that there is no taking them back.

[ncteechur]

24. it's nunya

nunya business