As a member of the armed services, you should be aware that, whether you like it or not, your life and, yes, even your deaths, are constantly politicized. To a person who believes strongly in the freedom of the press, I find it equally disrespectful that information that might affect the way that people view the military and government are censored.
You will not convince me to disrespect the remains of my fellow service members, ever
Somehow that doesn't really translate to evidence that every citizen has a right to privacy. Which is kind of the claim you said that they wanted evidence for. I mean I get where your coming from and all, but shit the origin of this argument was about not censoring the deceased soldiers return home, I fail to see how that translates to the press crashing private funerals.
You will not convince me to disrespect the remains of my fellow service members, ever.
We've more or less given up on changing your mind; right now we want you to show us the evidence behind your beliefs or shut up and go away.
Because I know that most service members don't want their families to be put through this. Why do I know this. Because I served with them, I was one of them. We all talked about this a few times. We didn't want the press invading our families lives if we got killed. Nor did we want to be used after our voices were silenced as a sort of poster child for any cause. Give the dead their dignity and move on. I was fortunate enough to have not been killed otherwise I wouldn't be here today. But There was a few close calls in the gulf where other Visit board search and seizure teams where all killed when one of the boats they where boarding blew itself up. We all knew that the next boat we boarded could be our last. I'll defend the dead if no one else will.
I think just about everyone here would rather that deceased peoples' families aren't disturbed unnecessarily. However, unlike you, most of us feel that doesn't justify government censorship of the press. What if the photo gets leaked to the Internet? Does the government go hunting down everyone who has downloaded the picture?
I think just about everyone here would rather that deceased peoples' families aren't disturbed unnecessarily. However, unlike you, most of us feel that doesn't justify government censorship of the press. What if the photo gets leaked to the Internet? Does the government go hunting down everyone who has downloaded the picture?
Where do you draw your arbitrary line? Because all our lines are arbitrary. What about the scene of a crime where some one has raped and murdered children, should that be censored? If so, why is that more/less arbitrary then my line?
Not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I also don't agree that we do.
Because I know that most service members don't want their families to be put through this. Why do I know this. Because I served with them, I was one of them. We all talked about this a few times. We didn't want the press invading our families lives if we got killed. Nor did we want to be used after our voices were silenced as a sort of poster child for any cause. Give the dead their dignity and move on. I was fortunate enough to have not been killed otherwise I wouldn't be here today. But There was a few close calls in the gulf where other Visit board search and seizure teams where all killed when one of the boats they where boarding blew itself up. We all knew that the next boat we boarded could be our last. I'll defend the dead if no one else will.
I agree with all of your sentiment, but I don't agree that there should be any legal restriction. Anything that happens in public or in the presence of a member of the press is thereby free game.
Where do you draw your arbitrary line? Because all our lines are arbitrary. What about the scene of a crime where some one has raped and murdered children, should that be censored? If so, why is that more/less arbitrary then my line?
Arbitrary? No. One shouldn't make decisions like this at random or on a whim. Those are the kinds of questions one should have a well-considered position on.
Where do you draw your arbitrary line? Because all our lines are arbitrary. What about the scene of a crime where some one has raped and murdered children, should that be censored? If so, why is that more/less arbitrary then my line?
Arbitrary? No. One shouldn't make decisions like this at random or on a whim. Those are the kinds of questions one should have a well-considered position on.
My well considered position is that I respect the desire of the service member. You guys do not. That's really the essence of this argument. There will never be 100% free speech or press, and honestly I don't think there should be. We already allow the press to push out mass media lies and mega corporations to buy congress with money-speech. Those things don't seem to be working out very well for us. I don't believe that the Bill of Rights or Constitution is a be all end all of what should be. Just like I don't believe that private citizens should be able to own an arsenal which is kind of assumed from the right to bear arms. I honestly don't believe people are in anyway harmed or misinformed when they are told that 30 bodies have arrived but are not shown a picture of it.
I also have a mild disapproval toward showing the actual remains of ancient humans in museums too.
I think the privacy issue is exceptionally important today. The internet does not forget. What if someone took a picture of you naked at the gym, posted it on the web and they you got fired for it? Would you feel that you've been wronged?
I think the privacy issue is exceptionally important today. The internet does not forget. What if someone took a picture of you naked at the gym, posted it on the web and they you got fired for it? Would you feel that you've been wronged?
Sure I would. Mostly, I'd feel wronged by the employer, because firing someone over a naked picture is completely ridiculous, but I'd also feel wronged by whoever took the picture, because they either didn't consider the consequences, or intentionally did it to harm me.
However, what exactly do you feel should be done to stop people from posting naked pictures of you on the web? What is your proposed solution? I don't see one.
Can we step back for a minute and define what we are arguing.
Is the point that we shouldn't take pictures of dead American soldiers if the family protests or is it that we shouldn't have pictures of unidentified flag draped coffins?
Personally, I don't have a problem with pictures of unidentified coffins and respectful public funeral ceremonies or memorials. However once you start showing actual dead soldiers bodies or identified remains against the wishes of the families then we start getting into a grey area. Nothing in the picture above of silhouettes of leaders looking at coffins going by shows any disrespect for the fallen. If they started showing identified dead soldiers without the families consent, obviously those should be protected.
Sure I would. However, what exactly do you feel should be done to stop people from posting naked pictures of you on the web? What is your proposed solution? I don't see one.
This is one of the big questions of our times. With all this information openess, how do we respect the individual. Everybody is cool with no privacy, no censorship until shit happens to them. What if you find yourself unemployed and trying to sue your company and their team of lawyer experts and you don't have a police report that says someone took unauthorized pictures of you. What if it was worse, what if a minor got a hold of them somehow and you got accused of soliciting sex to a minor?
What if you find yourself unemployed and trying to sue your company and their team of lawyer experts and you don't have a police report that says someone took unauthorized pictures of you.
You shouldn't need a police report to demonstrate that.
What if it was worse, what if a minor got a hold of them somehow and you got accused of soliciting sex to a minor?
That accusation clearly shouldn't hold water, since naked pictures are not sex.
Those situations don't seem realistic, and if they can happen, then the issues are with the law as it is now.
This is one of the big questions of our times. With all this information openess, how do we respect the individual. Everybody is cool with no privacy, no censorship until shit happens to them. What if you find yourself unemployed and trying to sue your company and their team of lawyer experts and you don't have a police report that says someone took unauthorized pictures of you. What if it was worse, what if a minor got a hold of them somehow and you got accused of soliciting sex to a minor?
It's actually really funny the shift I've seen on the topic of privacy. I remember in the early 2000's people were obsessed with Privacy, I remember long arguments with the crew where Rym and Scott would argue that we need to maintain privacy, then suddenly a shift happened and I guess a lot of us realized that privacy was pretty much screwed. It's interesting to see the debate evolve over time.
It doesn't have to be actual sex to get you on the sexual predator list...
Sure, there are probably other sex crimes you could be accused of in that situation, but "soliciting sex" clearly doesn't apply. If we want to have a discussion involving the law, we should at least try to be reasonably accurate...
I think the term would be "child sexual abuse", but let's say that was the accusation? So what. It shouldn't hold up unless there was solid evidence that you sent the picture to the child yourself - and clearly you didn't, so there wouldn't be.
Let's not conflate issues. Current laws for being listed as a sexual predator is a red herring in regards to freedom of the press.
Yea, I agree since I'm pretty sure most of us believe a lot of those laws are B.S. in the way they are applied. Was just pointing out that you never know what can happen :-p
I was going to make the effect that we need to join this fellow in wearing our pant on our heads and doing some funky chicken. However Cremlian's post caused a halt on said dancing. As far as I can tell that it is, at least form what I have seen in the UK and from what I read in the US, that the photos that come out are either wooden boxes or ones released by the family with their permission. Having spoken to a couple of people how did their time they didn't seem to fussed about it. One raised the point 'That at least I'd be on TV'.
One thing that would be interesting to see is more shows on troops serving at the moment. They have started to do that over here not sure about the US. Would that raise the same problems?
Let's not conflate issues. Current laws for being listed as a sexual predator is a red herring in regards to freedom of the press.
Yea, I agree since I'm pretty sure most of us believe a lot of those laws are B.S. in the way they are applied. Was just pointing out that you never know what can happen :-p
Agreed, most are BS, but the problem is that they do exist and have consequences.
Agreed, most are BS, but the problem is that they do exist and have consequences.
Okay, so we have a situation with bullshit laws + lack of privacy resulting in people getting into trouble they don't deserve to get into. However, it's pretty obvious that if we're going to do something about it, the thing to do is to fix the bullshit laws, not attempt to enforce privacy. As such, your point is moot.
Honestly I want the media (and the government) to not shy away from releasing pictures of war injured or dead that have given permission to be shown. I'm sure you'll find many soldiers who would be more then happy to show the cost/sacrifice a war has on it's soldiers and families. As long as we have permission it's a important message to have out there. Right now half the country thinks war is like a Call of Duty game.
However, it's pretty obvious that if we're going to do something about it, the thing to do is to fix the bullshit laws, not attempt to enforce privacy. As such, your point is moot.
I think the point is most of those laws will be very difficult to get rid of or modify without severe political drawback. Who wants to be the guy who loosened sexual predator laws :-p So you have to live in a world where those dumb laws stick around and effect your life.
A lot of arguments are ivory tower arguments or perfect world arguments not many people want to have a discussion about a real world solution or a solution within the confines of the situation we are presented with.
I think the point is most of those laws will be very difficult to get rid of or modify without severe political drawback. Who wants to be they guy who loosened sexual predator laws :-p
Me.
So you have to live in a world where those dumb laws stick around and effect your life.
Okay, so we're stuck with them, but it's not like there's an alternative solution to the problem that would be easy to implement in government. Draconian privacy laws would hardly be popular, plus they'd be ridiculously expensive to implement.
Honestly I want the media (and the government) to not shy away from releasing pictures of war injured or dead that have given permission to be shown. I'm sure you'll find many soldiers who would be more then happy to show the cost/sacrifice a war has on it's soldiers and families. As long as we have permission it's a important message to have out there. Right now half the country thinks war is like a Call of Duty game.
Totally agree with you there. So many people think that war is just some bangs and flashes and don't quite realise how much getting shot can fuck you up.
I did some reading Rym, and yeah the Bill of Rights and constitution don't say anything about privacy. I mean how could they imagine the issues of today anyway? However there are laws that do cover it.
surreptitious interception of conversations in a house or hotel room is eavesdropping. See e.g., N.Y. Penal §§ 250.00, 250.05 one has a right of privacy for contents of envelopes sent via first-class U.S. Mail. 18 USC § 1702; 39 USC § 3623 one has a right of privacy for contents of telephone conversations, telegraph messages, or electronic data by wire. 18 USC § 2510 et seq. one has a right of privacy for contents of radio messages. 47 USC §605 A federal statute denies federal funds to educational institutions that do not maintain confidentiality of student records, which enforces privacy rights of students in a backhanded way. 20 USC § 1232g. Commonly called the Buckley-Pell Amendment to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. See also Krebs v. Rutgers, 797 F.Supp. 1246 (D.N.J. 1991); Tombrello v. USX Corp., 763 F.Supp. 541 (N.D.Ala.1991). Records of sales or rentals of video tapes are confidential. 18 USC §2710 Content of e-mail in public systems are confidential. 18 USC § 2702(a). Bank records are confidential. 12 USC §3401 et seq. library records are confidential in some states. e.g., N.Y. CPLR § 4509; Quad/Graphics, Inc. v. Southern Adirondack Library Sys., 664 N.Y.S.2d 225 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 30 Sep 1997).
And I am having trouble finding this "Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 652A-652I", but I see references to it everywhere. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc. appropriation of a person's name or likeness; successful assertions of this right commonly involve defendant's use of a person's name or likeness on a product label or in advertising a product or service. A similar concept is the "right of publicity" in Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition §§46-47 (1995). The distinction is that privacy protects against "injury to personal feelings", while the right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's name or face. As a practical matter, celebrities generally sue under the right of publicity, while ordinary citizens sue under privacy. publication of private facts, for example, income tax data, sexual relations, personal letters, family quarrels, medical treatment, photographs of person in his/her home. publication that places a person in a false light, which is similar to defamation. A successful defamation action requires that the information be false. In a privacy action the information is generally true, but the information created a false impression about the plaintiff.
Comments
Edit:Damn, triple ninjad
What if the photo gets leaked to the Internet? Does the government go hunting down everyone who has downloaded the picture?
Also, please answer this question:
I also have a mild disapproval toward showing the actual remains of ancient humans in museums too.
However, what exactly do you feel should be done to stop people from posting naked pictures of you on the web? What is your proposed solution? I don't see one.
Is the point that we shouldn't take pictures of dead American soldiers if the family protests or is it that we shouldn't have pictures of unidentified flag draped coffins?
Personally, I don't have a problem with pictures of unidentified coffins and respectful public funeral ceremonies or memorials. However once you start showing actual dead soldiers bodies or identified remains against the wishes of the families then we start getting into a grey area. Nothing in the picture above of silhouettes of leaders looking at coffins going by shows any disrespect for the fallen. If they started showing identified dead soldiers without the families consent, obviously those should be protected.
Those situations don't seem realistic, and if they can happen, then the issues are with the law as it is now.
I think the term would be "child sexual abuse", but let's say that was the accusation? So what. It shouldn't hold up unless there was solid evidence that you sent the picture to the child yourself - and clearly you didn't, so there wouldn't be.
One thing that would be interesting to see is more shows on troops serving at the moment. They have started to do that over here not sure about the US. Would that raise the same problems?
Dam you all and the ninjering....
However, it's pretty obvious that if we're going to do something about it, the thing to do is to fix the bullshit laws, not attempt to enforce privacy. As such, your point is moot.
A lot of arguments are ivory tower arguments or perfect world arguments not many people want to have a discussion about a real world solution or a solution within the confines of the situation we are presented with.
surreptitious interception of conversations in a house or hotel room is eavesdropping. See e.g., N.Y. Penal §§ 250.00, 250.05
one has a right of privacy for contents of envelopes sent via first-class U.S. Mail. 18 USC § 1702; 39 USC § 3623
one has a right of privacy for contents of telephone conversations, telegraph messages, or electronic data by wire. 18 USC § 2510 et seq.
one has a right of privacy for contents of radio messages. 47 USC §605
A federal statute denies federal funds to educational institutions that do not maintain confidentiality of student records, which enforces privacy rights of students in a backhanded way. 20 USC § 1232g. Commonly called the Buckley-Pell Amendment to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. See also Krebs v. Rutgers, 797 F.Supp. 1246 (D.N.J. 1991); Tombrello v. USX Corp., 763 F.Supp. 541 (N.D.Ala.1991).
Records of sales or rentals of video tapes are confidential. 18 USC §2710
Content of e-mail in public systems are confidential. 18 USC § 2702(a).
Bank records are confidential. 12 USC §3401 et seq.
library records are confidential in some states. e.g., N.Y. CPLR § 4509; Quad/Graphics, Inc. v. Southern Adirondack Library Sys., 664 N.Y.S.2d 225 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 30 Sep 1997).
And I am having trouble finding this "Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 652A-652I", but I see references to it everywhere.
unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc.
appropriation of a person's name or likeness; successful assertions of this right commonly involve defendant's use of a person's name or likeness on a product label or in advertising a product or service. A similar concept is the "right of publicity" in Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition §§46-47 (1995). The distinction is that privacy protects against "injury to personal feelings", while the right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's name or face. As a practical matter, celebrities generally sue under the right of publicity, while ordinary citizens sue under privacy.
publication of private facts, for example, income tax data, sexual relations, personal letters, family quarrels, medical treatment, photographs of person in his/her home.
publication that places a person in a false light, which is similar to defamation. A successful defamation action requires that the information be false. In a privacy action the information is generally true, but the information created a false impression about the plaintiff.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Privacy_R2d_Torts_Sections.htm
Curse you all, I want to be lazy.