Was this family harmed?

[Pangloss]

ABC News' 20/20 magazine show ran an interesting piece on Friday night that provides an interesting angle on the question of Internet freedom. Here's the print version:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3872556&page=1

 

In a nutshell, a young woman died after taking her father's Porsche for a joyride. The accident was extremely graphic, involving partial decapitation. From a geek perspective, it seemed to combine a number of compelling elements. A drop-dead gorgeous teenage girl, a beautiful, expensive automobile, and a uniquely flashy and violent death. For the typical teen-angster, what's not to like?

 

The California Highway Patrol took photographs of the scene. Apparently at least one CHP employee emailed the photographs beyond the confines of CHP offices, and one employee was suspended for that action and is now defending himself in a lawsuit brought by the family. He claims that the CHP does this all the time to scare the public into driving right (I think we've all seen stuff like that, right?). But he had no authorization, from his employers or the family. Personally I don't think he has a leg to stand on -- should be fired, should pay a civil penalty. He knew better.

 

But what's really unfortunate about this story is what happened next. Part of it I think we can all predict and understand -- the photos appeared on web sites around the internet. Unfortunately the girl's name and address were also publicized somehow, and the family began to be inundated by emails and phone calls from anonymous people harassing them in various ways. Why did you spoil your daughter with a Porsche, she got what she deserved, etc. Photos of their decapitated daughter were even emailed to the girl's younger siblings! Pretty nasty stuff.

 

The family has been trying to get the images removed from the Internet, and therein lies (IMO) our most intriguing subject for discussion. Should the family be able to accomplish that? Is it a reasonable thing for them to attempt to do? Should they have any expectation of success? Should the government be helping them in any way? I think these are interesting questions.

 

One web site with the photos is hosted by a far-left blogger mostly known for displaying grusome photographs of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (he was sued for this but the lawsuit was dropped). Apparently that host, after being contacted by ABC News, has agreed to remove the photos if the family contacts him directly. I think I can see where he might be coming from there, both before and after he changed his mind. I don't know that he was wrong to stand on that principle, but I think he's making the right choice now.

 

That's how I see this, as more a matter of doing the right thing versus standing on principle even if somebody gets hurt. Just because the first amendment protects your right to say offensive things doesn't mean it's a good idea to say them, and you make a statement about yourself when you do so.

 

What do you all think?

[mooeypoo]

The family has been trying to get the images removed from the Internet, and therein lies (IMO) our most intriguing subject for discussion. Should the family be able to accomplish that? Is it a reasonable thing for them to attempt to do? Should they have any expectation of success? Should the government be helping them in any way? I think these are interesting questions.

Should they be able to? Probably, yeah, morally-speaking, sure. It's their daughter, they're being hurt by these photos being online, and the removal of the photos won't hurt ANYONE else, just help them.

 

Can they!? I doubt so very very much.

 

The net is too open for that; even if court judges that whoever publishes these pictures is liable for compensations or whatever, then the pics would be published on some off-US server.

 

There's no way to stop it other than ignoring it. Eventually, like everything online, it will go away.

 

Sad, but I think there's not really anything else to do to *stop* it. The family should get compensation for their misery from the guy that sent these in the first place. But stopping it? Too late.

 

One web site with the photos is hosted by a far-left blogger mostly known for displaying grusome photographs of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (he was sued for this but the lawsuit was dropped). Apparently that host, after being contacted by ABC News, has agreed to remove the photos if the family contacts him directly. I think I can see where he might be coming from there, both before and after he changed his mind. I don't know that he was wrong to stand on that principle, but I think he's making the right choice now.

Well, again, that's inside the USA. This blogger can just post the pics on some European server, or Asian server, or another place where this rule doesn't apply.

 

And then what? Who are they going to sue to ask for this to be removed? No one.

 

What might be a good idea is to just actively ban these places, so they don't get the attention they want. the only reason this guy goes on - and is probably successful - is for the 'controversy' he's creating and the traffic that comes to his blog.

 

Not supporting this and not going there might be the only way to make this fade out.

 

 

~moo

[iNow]

The family has been trying to get the images removed from the Internet, and therein lies (IMO) our most intriguing subject for discussion. Should the family be able to accomplish that?

What a sad story, and a tragic situation with which the family must deal. Not only did they lose their teenage daughter, but now they have to explore their rights of privacy and find the best way to honor their deceased daughter and ensure she doesn't become the next bulldog on a skateboard on the internet.

 

Either way, there is precedent for having photos removed from the internet, but it usally involves big money and powerful attorneys. I'm thinking of Hollywood stars have photos removed due to their damaging content. I'm struggling to see why the family could not accomplish the same (given enough money and resources).

[mooeypoo]

Either way, there is precedent for having photos removed from the internet, but it usally involves big money and powerful attorneys. I'm thinking of Hollywood stars have photos removed due to their damaging content. I'm struggling to see why the family could not accomplish the same (given enough money and resources).

 

Yeah but even these don't work, iNow, the pictures still exist in remote servers where they can't be removed from, and resurface every now and then. But the Hollywood stars, unlike the family, are "prepared" to deal with lack of privacy, they have teams of people answering their phones, etc. Also, what they usually deal with is not quite the same.. "nude pictures" or some other exposing paparazzi stuff is not the same as watching your daughter get ripped to shreds in your new car..

 

I think that there are three different things here -- moral decision (is it RIGHT to take it off the net) and practical decision (is it POSSIBLE to take it off) and what *CAN* be done (as in, the "least of all evils" choice.. compensation, switch phones, move.. etc).

 

Horrible story, though. The guy that did this needs to be severely punished.

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

I meant to put something about this in the OP, but one of the more intriguing aspects of the story to me was the company they contacted to assist them. It's called Reputation Defender, and their web site can be found here:

 

http://www.reputationdefender.com/

 

I've seen a lot of web sites that help you with identity theft, but I don't think I've seen one with quite this angle before -- protecting and recovering things like photographs, malicious rumors, etc. Quite an interesting little niche, isn't it?

 

IMO that's one of the great things that has arisen BECAUSE we've left the Internet alone. Human ingenuity knows no bounds, and companies like this spring up almost daily, cleverly filling those niches of individual need. Why not?

 

I know I'm preaching to the converted when I say government intervention would kill all that innovation faster than anything, but it is perhaps worth noting that this is something that many liberals and conservatives agree on (though perhaps more of the former than the latter).

 

Horrible story, though. The guy that did this needs to be severely punished.

 

I thought both your posts were interesting, Moo, so I don't mean to single this out and nit-pick on it, but I wonder if "severely" might be too much.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but is he responsible for the *extent* of the damage his action had? Or just the action he actually took?

[mooeypoo]

Okay, I wanted to see how widespread the pictures are.

 

I must say, I couldn't find them -- and I'm not a noob to google. I don't quite WANT to see them (those of you who know where I originally lived, could probably imagine seeing gruesome pictures is not something I enjoy doing, though done quite a lot before) but I wanted to see how BAD it is.

 

I did find a few blogs that had an article condemning the posting of these pictures, and then putting a link to "If you want to see the pictures click here", which led here (or similar point):

 

http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2006/10/crash-photos.html

If you clicked over here because you thought you were going to see grisly crash photos, you're sick and need professional help.

 

So it seems that the net community is up on the immorality of this. I think that within a very short time, the pictures will go away, or at least the harassments will.

 

I thought both your posts were interesting, Moo, so I don't mean to single this out and nit-pick on it, but I wonder if "severely" might be too much.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but is he responsible for the *extent* of the damage his action had? Or just the action he actually took?

Oh, well, I didn't mean "Castrate him!" severely.. I meant "Make sure he pays damages because he knew what he was doing is wrong and he caused damage to that family!" Severely.

 

I would say he is responsible, because he knew it's wrong, he knew it's graphic, and he probably had enough experience to know that these TYPE of very graphic photos very quickly make their way accross the net (my search for the extent of the 'damage' also showed a bunch of other stories about gruesome pictures, so this is hardly the first time).

 

 

In any case, "Severely" is such an objective term, wouldn't you say?

 

~moo