Quote:
Originally Posted by Numero10  First off, I saw those pictures and they made me want to vomit. I mean, seriously, those are beyond disturbing images.
Secondly, there is a valid point to the lawsuit...negligence. I know that people question how the CHP could be liable for their anguish but man, if I were in the family's shoes and receiving those pictures through email and texts, seeing a fake myspace page set up, and just KNOWING that people were out there swapping those pictures and basically getting off on the gore... that's plenty of unecessary anguish that could have been prevented. If CHP employees are emailing sensitive confidential pictures around their department and then those employees email them to external recipients- then there is definitely exposure for CHP. If CHP was aware this was going on or did not have reasonable safeguards in place to protect this sort of private information from being freely disseminated then they sure as f*ck can be and should be held responsible. This is the CHP, not some rinky dink operation in a small podunk town. The CHP can absolutely can be held to a higher standard of care. This is clearly different from a valid public records request. CHP operated in a negligent manner and these photos were not published following a records request (which would then place liability if any on the requestor). |
While CHP really screwed up by distributing those images, they are not confidential or private. Anyone could have gotten to them anyway. The dispatchers may have been a catalyst and gotten things going, but its not like they are solely responsible. You may have an argument in that the photos might not have surfaced without their actions, but its a weak one. The pictures were still out there for the taking
Quote:
IMO, I think its pretty twisted that the public can request crime scene photos and video. There are some sick f*cks out there who probably collect this sort of crap and that to me is not a valid use of the materials. The internet can be a scary place nowadays and the ability for citizens to access public records can be exploited and perverted by some twisted individuals.
I think the lawsuit is valid if it is based on this theory and not arguing that accessibility to public records violates a family's right to privacy or something. I agree that access to public records is a good thing but there should be some safeguards in place. In some cases, the law should not be so black and white. Some of the issues that arise here are that these materials can be extremely graphic and sensitive in nature, that some people are seeking to PROFIT off of them (some people post blogs about controversial stories for the sole purpose of driving traffic to their site so that peopel will click on their google ads etc.). IMO, there should be room for a balance between fair access and general human decency by either allowing the family to seal documents that fall into a certain pre-defiined category or having civil liability for those who use the materials in an absuive manner.
|
You're ignoring the possibility of people abusing the seal/safeguard policy you speak of, and I'm absolutely sure that they would. I feel bad for the family, and it must be horrible to have to deal with the pictures, but that doesn't mean they have a valid case