If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Herald)   Can you believe that Massachusetts court rules do not require criminal defendants to pose nicely for news photographers?   (bostonherald.com) divider line 57
    More: Silly, Courts of Massachusetts, Massachusetts, regulations, wrongful convictions, photographers, Jake Wark, United States House Committee on Homeland Security  
•       •       •

8104 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jul 2013 at 7:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-02 11:23:06 PM  

Dear Jerk: mgshamster: Dear Jerk: I wouldn't have a problem with that if those same people would have front page stories about their innocence when they get off.

That is a long-time fault of media.
But my first concern is with the folly of letting the police/judiciary operate in private.
My secondary concern is that the general public do not take the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' seriously.

Not taking a photo is extremely different from not being allowed to report on the case or court proceedings as a journalist.

Not from a first amendment point of view. If you (most people) would get over your assumption of guilt, and see the defendant as innocent, you'd see that media is there mainly to keep the powers-that-be in check.


The fact that you can type that with a straight face is depressing.
 
2013-07-02 11:34:18 PM  

Dear Jerk: mgshamster: Dear Jerk: I wouldn't have a problem with that if those same people would have front page stories about their innocence when they get off.

That is a long-time fault of media.
But my first concern is with the folly of letting the police/judiciary operate in private.
My secondary concern is that the general public do not take the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' seriously.

Not taking a photo is extremely different from not being allowed to report on the case or court proceedings as a journalist.

Not from a first amendment point of view. If you (most people) would get over your assumption of guilt, and see the defendant as innocent, you'd see that media is there mainly to keep the powers-that-be in check.


Keep on drinking that Kool-Aid.  The vast majority of the media enjoys their cosy relationship with the powers-that-be; they snack on just enough juicy dirt to get ratings, without causing so much disruption that it threatens their job security.
 
2013-07-03 01:25:09 AM  

Dear Jerk: skinink: I never liked how mugshots are public information and allowed to be shown. We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but having a mugshot out there doesn't help you. I think it's Germany that outlaws the showing of mugshots.

I'm a 180 from you. The police have no right to conceal the identity of anyone the've taken into custody.

It's only been since the mid-80s that cameras were allowed in court. They still aren't allowed in many.
Some states ban the taking of pictures at a perp walk.
I don't have a problem with defendants trying to evade photographers during arraignment.
Defendants shouldn't be allowed to conceal their faces in open court.

/former photojournalist


Defendants who are charged but not convicted should have the same right to privacy as the alleged "victims". When they are convicted, that's when they lose that right.
 
2013-07-03 07:57:37 AM  
Since when did Massachusetts become part of Cardassia?
 
2013-07-03 08:37:58 AM  

letrole: Falsely accused people don't hide like that.


If they have something to lose just by the accusation, they do.
 
2013-07-03 10:55:05 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom:
Defendants who are charged but not convicted should have the same right to privacy as the alleged "victims". When they are convicted, that's when they lose that right.


You're talking about a fantasy right to privacy that is incompatible with our rights before the government. We have an accusatorial judicial system and if you want to introduce some misguided libertarian sense of privacy into it, we'll degrade back to an inquisitorial system.
 
2013-07-03 01:42:43 PM  

Dear Jerk: FlyingLizardOfDoom:
Defendants who are charged but not convicted should have the same right to privacy as the alleged "victims". When they are convicted, that's when they lose that right.

You're talking about a fantasy right to privacy that is incompatible with our rights before the government. We have an accusatorial judicial system and if you want to introduce some misguided libertarian sense of privacy into it, we'll degrade back to an inquisitorial system.


That's a pretty good example of a slippery slope fallacy.  Once again, preventing the spread of an accused's picture is not the equivalent of a private court system.  Journalists can still be present in the court room. They can still report on the court proceedings. They can still do real journalism (as rare as it is these days).  We don't allow the information of juveniles to be spread around when they are accused; and yet, somehow we don't have a private justice system with the juvenile court.

. Not allowing picture to be taken of the accused and defending their privacy until after they are convicted only hurts pseudo-journalists who rely on shock, slander, and fear to make up for their lack of ability to do actual real journalism. It won't hurt the victim, it won't hurt he accused, it won't hurt the public, it won't change the court system, and it certainly wouldn't hurt real journalists
 
Displayed 7 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report