“…privacy must be approached from a people-centered perspective, and not through the marketplace.” -by Leslie Regan Shade, …and I agree.

I realized recently that I am not surprise by the content on the local TV station’s websites. I can go and click on any one of them and view photos of car crashes, the very site that a persons life had been taken, and more times than not, video footage of the latest reason why the interstate highway 4, is blocked.  The very photos that offer clues to the FDLE, are right there for not only my eyes to see, but also available to viewers from all over the world.  

My issue with this practice is that, the families of these victims, not only have the initial shock of hearing about their loved ones death or injuries, but they now have a constant reminder of this tragedy. 

I know that the technology of instant video gratification has surpassed the hallmarks of the First Amendment, and circumvents the Fifth Amendment on a daily basis. 

I am offering my opinion on this because recently I was informed that my one of my parents had been in an accident in which, a driver of a truck made a right turn on red, and fail to yield to the pedestrian, who at that time was in the crossing the street.  My parent did not see the truck until it had been contact, and their body had remained pinned under the truck, the truck moved them several feet before coming to a stop.

I for one, even if this were not my parent, would not want photos of this on my local TV stations webs site, not would I want the images posted on the news, with anyone of or delightful news anchors.

I cannot even begin to imagine what it would be like to see these images of this accident, nor would I want to be filmed’ while hearing news of this tragic accident.

I think the idea of filming anything usually is to make record of something, whether it is for profit or for documentation of service rendered by the OFD /first responders, or for court record.  Usually it is the later. 

Therefore, in the name of justice, many have said, they want to see the video of Casey in the jail’s medical waiting room.  Is this because as a society, whose been cabled fed a variety of reality format television shows, that the folks say “hey, it reality, lets she her in pain, let’s see her incriminated herself…let see it, lets see it…”

When will the insanity of the insane notion that one-person tragedy is another person’s favored pastime.  I have ask, did the corrections officers take Ms. Anthony out of her cell, bring her down to the medial facility’s waiting area, to film her reactions the day Mr. Padilla offered his findings from the search at lake near Jay Blanchard park.

….You know, the search paid by Mr. Padilla.

….You know the one resulted in misinformation from Mr. Padilla     and that the FDLE had to field questionable findings latter to be found as animal bones and products unrelated to the Anthony’s or to their home.

The answer is no. the corrections department and its officers allowed Ms. Anthony to remain in her Cell.  It has been of record, the OCCO stated Ms. Anthony heard the news on her radio.  Also noted is that the Video in question is incomplete, as Ms. Anthony was in the medical waiting room for more than 30 minutes, and the video

is shorter, based on the video time counter.

May I remind you of these two cases –

Estes v. Texas in 1965- Estes v. Texas, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction of a defendant whose trial was televised to the public. The Supreme Court held that the defendant was deprived of his due process rights.  In addition, the court declared that by televising the trial, the jury was made, inherently prejudicial. 

Sheppard v. Maxwell in 1966- The Supreme Court in an 8 to 1 decision declared that Sheppard had been deprived of a fair trial because the judge failed to minimize “the prejudicial impact of massive publicity.”

The most recent case of deprived in deference by the court and the media is the issue of a person’s right to privacy vs. the public’s right to know.  In the Orlando Sentinel filed a Freedom of Information Act request, to obtain copies of racecar driver Dale Earnhardt’s autopsy photos.

I remember when the Orlando Sentinel requested his autopsy photos, stating that they wanted to have an expert see these photos, who would offer their expert opinion on head trauma and it’s relation to on going safety issues in the field of auto racing.  The newspaper added that they did not intend to publish the photographs.

Mr. Earnhardt’s widow, Teresa Earnhardt, was, perhaps understandably, outraged. She had also feared that access to these photos would lead, inevitably to the internet.  One website, whose owner is Michael Uribe, had in previous instances, published photographs of other drivers whom have had similar accidents, in which death had resulted.

“It repulses me, as an advocate and as a person, what those creeps are doing,” Rumberger said of the posting of the images of the drivers who accidents resulted in death at Daytona, only three days apart during Speedweeks 1994.  “You know exactly where they were going with the Earnhardt photographs.”

 

Nevertheless, by the time, the suit settled, Mr. Uribe had been enjoining in the suit along with the media in its request.  He was excluded in the meeting that was part of the mediated settlement, in which the Orlando Sentinel, and its representatives were given permission to view the photographs along with Dr. Barry Myers, PhD, a specialist in head and neck injury, and holds a position as associate professor at Duke University,

 

In summary, this issue-

I will post Leslie Shade’s opinion;

“Leslie Regan Shade argues that the human right to privacy is necessary for meaningful democratic participation, and ensures human dignity and autonomy.  Privacy depends on norms for how information is distributed, and if this is appropriate.  Violations of privacy depend on context.  The human right to privacy has precedent in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”[1] Shade believes that privacy must be approached from a people-centered perspective, and not through the marketplace.[2]”

References:

Shade, L. R. (2008). Reconsidering the right to privacy in Canada. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1), 80-91.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved October 7, 2006 from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Advertisements

2 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Boston
    Jun 03, 2009 @ 08:39:32

    No one needs to see the video of Casey melting down while watching the Breaking News on the day they discovered remains of a small child in her neighborhood. The DA has more than enough evidence to go forward with and just the right evidence to convict. What they did in getting video footage of Casey Anthony is not comparable to a video of your parents car crash. Although you do not like the idea that public events are filmed, insurers, police and jurors rely on them when civil and criminal cases move forward.

%d bloggers like this: