On January 7, 2008, investigators searching in the mountains of northern Georgia found the nude and decapitated body of 24-year-old Meredith Emerson. Emerson had disappeared six days earlier, and her body was found after admitted killer Gary Michael Hilton bargained for a life sentence in exchange for leading investigators to her body.
Two years following the discovery of her body, a writer for Hustler magazine requested copies of the crime scene photos depicting Emerson’s naked and dismembered body. Emerson’s family in turn sought a temporary restraining order on the photos, which was granted by DeKalb Superior Court Judge Daniel Coursey on March 10, 2010. This order prohibited the Georgia Bureau of Investigation from releasing “any and all photographs, visual images or depictions of Meredith Emerson which show Emerson in an unclothed or dismembered state.”
The same day this order was granted by Coursey, the Georgia House Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously passed "The Meredith Emerson Memorial Privacy Act.” This legislation prohibits the public release of photographs and video recordings “which depict or describe a deceased person in a state of dismemberment, decapitation, or similar mutilation including, without limitation, where the deceased person's genitalia are exposed.”
The question at stake in this case is over the privacy right of the victim and her family, and the public’s right to access these photographs. The passage of this new legislation has sparked debate among first amendment lawyers and free speech advocates over the effect that this kind of ban could have.
The reporter for Hustler, Fred Rosen, is a journalist, historian, and true-crime book author. In defense of his request for the crime scene photographs, Posen states, “the reason I'm looking for [the crime scene photos] is to find the best obtainable version of the truth." While Rosen justifies his need for access to these photos, he does not explain why he must have his own copies of the photos in his possession. The bill passed allows credentialed journalists, lawyers, and law enforcement agents access to these photographs at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Headquarters, even though they are not allowed to produce copies of the photos.
Furthermore, Posen does not address how these photos would be used in the pornographic magazine Hustler. It is not unreasonable to presume that the crime scene photos of Meredith Emerson’s mutilated body would be exploited by Hustler to conflate sexuality and brutality against women.
First amendment lawyers have expressed concern that this ban “could have a chilling effect on open records requests,” according to the CNN article. The Freedom of Information Act allows for exceptions that permit certain documents to be exempt from public release. These exceptions include autopsy photos, medical records, personnel records, and other documents of a private nature. This new legislation is an attempt to add crime scene photos as another exception to the Freedom of Information Act. Free speech advocates argue that further restrictions limiting the release of information to the public is a step backwards and is not in the public’s interest.
On the other side of this issue, the Emerson family argues that these photographs should not be released to the public to respect the privacy and integrity of the Meredith and of future victims. Victims of these crimes do not give their consent for the crime scene photos to be released, and the family thus argues that the victim’s right to privacy be respected.
In response to this argument, free speech advocates have argued that there should not be a censor on these photos due to their awfulness, as photos equally terrible, such as pictures of soldiers and victims of war are openly displayed to the public. Furthermore, people photographed suffering from problems like starvation or national disasters do not give their consent for photographs. Their choices may not be respected, and advocates say that there should be no reason for the crime scene photos to be special exceptions.
In my opinion, the harm that the release of these photos would cause seems to outweigh the benefits. To the family and friends of the victim, their public release would cause extreme pain and unnecessary stress. I feel as if there is not a strong enough public interest in this case to warrant the release of these photographs.
I understand the danger in suppressing information to the press, and as a general rule all information should be made available to the press. However, exceptions exist for a reason, and in this particular case I believe that the harm to the families outweighs the interest of the public in regards to the release of these photographs.
1. http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2010-03-08/hustler-wants-crime-scene-photos-
slain-hiker
2. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/10/meredith.emerson.photos/index.html
3. http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/search/hb1322.htm
4. http://www.righttohikeinc.com/
5. http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11315
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)#Scope
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you that the release of these photos would not only be disrespectful to the deceased, but also inappropriate on multiple levels. In this case, at least, a reporter from Hustler Magazine should not have the right to reproduce these images.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I don't think they should have released such strict legislation based upon this one case. Although it was dire to prevent Meredith's photos from being spread to the public (for grotesque reasons), it was not a justification for making legislation that would limit so many other fields of photography. Yes, there are photos of reality that are difficult to deal with, but they should be present in the public. It's a conundrum in many ways.
It seems unfair to the family that they should have to argue to maintain the privacy of their deceased daughter's photos while dealing with such a horrific loss.
ReplyDeleteBecause these pictures directly dealt with the crime and weren't private photos, it is understandable that they should be accessible to the public. However, just because they are accessible, it doesn't mean that they should be published in a magazine. Even in Hustler, it seems uncertain to me that the readers would want to see the pictures in the first place.
If the journalist requesting the photos had been from a more "respectable" magazine, it is still questionable whether it is right to publish them. I guess you could consider the readers to be a captive audience. There are often articles about violence and murders, but they are not frequently accompanied by the disturbing pictures associated with the crime. Many people just aren't prepared to be ambushed with something like that in a journal.