back to article Kentucky spies stricken: Ban on web snaps of horror accidents mulled

The US state of Kentucky is considering a law that would prohibit posting live photos from accident and disaster scenes. Kentucky House Bill 170 [PDF], if passed, will ban people from snapping and uploading photos from the scene of an accident or any event that "could reasonably result in a serious injury" for at least one …

  1. Youngone Silver badge

    That's not really what's happening

    What "Bam" is really doing is "starting a discussion" because he's well aware that idiotic crap like this won't pass muster against the First Amendment as this makes clear.

    Although "starting a discussion" by introducing a bill is completely stupid anyway.

    1. Steven Roper

      Re: That's not really what's happening

      From your link:

      "The bill’s exception for the news media also is problematic, Fleischaker said.

      “In a very real sense, anybody with an iPhone can take a picture and transmit it to the world. I can do it on my phone,” he said. “If you’re trying to define today who is the media and who isn’t, good luck with that.”"

      This is exactly what bothered me the most as well. In today's connected world, "the press" has become little more than an officially-approved social-media-regurgitating censorship and propaganda machine. In terms of what constitutes "news media", my personal blog qualifies just as much as CNN, with the only real differences being audience magnitude and article posting rate.

      So where would this exemption end? What constitutes "news media?" A blog with ten readers? A hundred? A hundred thousand? A million? Or is it any site with more than one contributing author? Five? Fifty?

      Also, being in Australia I am bound by the same censorship, privacy-protection and publication-liability laws as the major news outlets, so as far as I'm concerned if the ABC are allowed to stick photos of a car crash on their front page, so am I. If I'm bound by the same rules I also claim the same rights.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: That's not really what's happening

        Obviosuly not going to pass - but it is something we should start thinking about.

        Schools ban parents taking photos of their own kids in a school play - but if the kid was lying dying in the road you could splash that photo across Facebook.

        The definition of "professional news media" is probably an organisation that wouldn't do that without some serious public interest reason

        1. Steven Roper

          Re: That's not really what's happening

          "The definition of "professional news media" is probably an organisation that wouldn't do that without some serious public interest reason"

          May I ask what planet you're living on, that has socially responsible news media? Because that sounds like a place I would love to come and live in too! Is your world accepting refugees?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: That's not really what's happening

          Schools ban parents taking photos of their own kids in a school play - but if the kid was lying dying in the road you could splash that photo across Facebook.

          School - Private location - expectation of privacy

          Road - Public location - no expectation of privacy.

          Whether it is morally right or wrong is another question.

          Today on the BBC I saw the photo of the actual Turkish explosion taken by a passer by. So is it illegal (under this law) as it was taken by a "non-professional" or legal as it being shown by the BBC?

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: That's not really what's happening

            I think it's the morals that we are discussing

            And even after the horrors of the great website redesign - we are still a little way away from the BBC running a "viewers send in their car accident photos" bit at the end of the 6 o'clock news

    2. Fatman
      Joke

      Re: That's not really what's happening

      From the linked article:

      <quote>The sponsor of House Bill 170, Republican state Rep. John “Bam” Carney of Campbellsville, said Monday that he wouldn’t push the bill this session.</quote>

      The bold text says it all!!!

      1. a_yank_lurker

        Re: That's not really what's happening

        The Donkeys are just as idiotic as the elephants when comes to such things. Remember one of the primary qualifications to be a politician is to be an extremely stupid shyster who is best at "subtracting from the sum total of human knowledge."

        1. tom dial Silver badge

          Re: That's not really what's happening

          It is true that neither major party is noticeably short of an occasional urge to stupid behaviour, but it also is true that the average office holder is smarter than the median voter, smart enough to recognize that fact, and smart enough to take popular positions to get (re)elected.

          That is why we need the Bill of Rights hard wired into the Constitution to keep them somewhat under control.

          Posting gory pictures of accident scenes is horribly bad taste, but allowing the government to constrain "speech" in its most general forms is a generally worse alternative.

  2. Old Used Programmer

    So...he wants to ban anyone from posting pictures of NFL games until the game has been over for an hour?

  3. mrjohn

    Sad that we have to consider legislation because people lack self restraint

    1. Martin Summers Silver badge

      You could say that about mostly any illegal activity.

    2. werdsmith Silver badge

      Self restraint on the one hand, or the total disgust of others on the other.

      If the only result of a person propagating such images is disapproval or worse from their audience, then they won't do it, so in fact, the recipients are party to the problem.

      It's like the biased gutter trash press in the UK, as much as I am appalled by the crap that the Daily Mail, the Guardian and all the tabloids print, there are still enough people to buy and sustain them as businesses.

  4. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: Attack on free speech?

      I'm not convinced this is an attack on free speech - you're free to post said pictures (if you still think it is in good taste) after an hour - but you allow an amount of time for the families to be notified in the proper manner.

      It's an hour, not a week, and certainly not "never".

      I'd go with the victim exclusion, but I can't see why the "professional" media should be any different, nor first responders (although they might want to email it to the paramedics, but I would guess that facebook isn't the way they do that) - stuff still hurtles around (anti-)social media pretty fast - wherever it was taken from.

      A location and a stock photo would be adequate for the news media for the first hour...

      Of course legislating for sense is never going to work...

      1. Mark 85

        Re: Attack on free speech?

        Of course legislating for sense is never going to work...

        There it is in a nutshell. People have no discretion, no thoughts about anyone else. This is trying to legislate that. If it does bring about discussion as Mr. Carney would like, it still won't change anything.

        Common sense. Respect. Discretion. Thinking of others, victims families in this case. These have all but disappeared. The world is a sadder place because of it.

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: Attack on free speech?

          These have all but disappeared

          People have been making this complaint for all of history - and no doubt before then; we just don't have a record of it.

  5. chivo243 Silver badge
    Holmes

    Wait for it

    Someone will tack on a rider... that's the spicy a meatball we need to watch out for.

  6. Last Bandit

    Not my country...

    But as an idea, I agree with it.

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: Not my country...

      So are you in favor of censorship in all cases, or just for expression you personally don't like?

  7. Florida1920
    Pint

    Take it from the Colonel

    Editor: Have a pint for the headline!

  8. DeliberatusFreeman

    Chicken of Kentucky spies

    These people are chicken of live uncensored news.

  9. Steve Aubrey

    Good luck

    . . . legislating morality.

  10. BongoJoe
    Thumb Up

    Perhaps now

    people may be more inclined to help others in difficulty rather than taking pictures of the poor sod.

  11. Bucky 2

    Who are we protecting here?

    If I were to summarize the bill, I'd say:

    First responders, members of the press, and victims of an accident are free to post images of an accident on social media (or wherever) without restriction, and without regard for taste or morality.

    Everyone else is forbidden from an hour. Also regardless of whether the images are tasteful or not, or moral or not.

    So either way, the images go up. It sounds like it's simply a way for the press to make money off it before the bloggers make it available everywhere.

  12. Stevie

    Bah!

    The

    United States state of Kentucky. As opposed to to other one.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like