oh gawd, my continuum of posts are so golfhobolike


If I were in charge of the AP, it would be very doubtful that I would publish the pictures, given the request of the family. There are plenty of other photo opportunities to let us know how the war effects our kids over there, but as the wave of our society would have it, it probably received more views because of the controversy its publication made. So we, society, have fed this.

 

Clarified, most excellently... !! Agree 110% :thumbsup:

 

I can't believe you said this!

You are essentially saying that our right to a "free" press does not exist... but that we should only have the "right" to see what our GOVERNMENT decides to allow us to see? [think Pravda.]

I think the point you are making is that, through the FOIA, we have a RIGHT to see photos that are taken by our government. This would be nice... but is not true in the least. This is WHY we have the right to a free press. To show us what our government can legally avoid showing us. [think Roswell.]

But, even if we DID have the right to see any and all photos "taken by our government" (ostensibly because we ARE the government?) that does not infringe our right to see any photos, or have any knowledge, imparted to us by the free press.

LCH quoted the 1st ammendment and underlined the clause about a free press. YOU said that "only" assures the rights of the press to publish without government censorship. That is only half true. The reason our press is free is that "we the people" HAVE THE RIGHT to such information, fully disclosed, uncensored and readily available.... and from whatever source available.

1) As I understood the story, the soldier died LATER of his wounds... so it was a picture of a wounded soldier. [I have not seen the picture.]

2) As you are not ex-military, you may not realize what Government Issue (G.I.) really means. When one enlists in the service of our country, one becomes a government "asset" and no longer wholly fits the description of a "private citizen."

3) As the public is funding the war, and electing the people who make the decisions that affect our troops, the public has EVERY "right" to see and know the truth about our governments actions and involvements. And as LCH said, and I have heard MANY of the greatest newsmen of our time express..., that in a free society, the press has the obligation to keep the public informed.

[I guess my ears were burning. You'll get YOURS Dobry!!! :lol2: ]

 

Yes, a family has a right to privacy though it is poorly defined. The ONLY mention of such right in the Constitution (I believe) is the 4th Ammendment which protects against warrantless search and seizure.

However.... what a family does or says or has, within the confines of their own home, is one thing. But once a member of that family becomes part of a government fighting force, is paid by the citizens, travels to some far away land and is an active participant in a very "public" war.... I think your notion of privacy is out the window.

In fact.... the "libel" laws of our land have been clearly defined to make distinction between public and private citizens. The soldiers of Abu Graib may have been private citizens when at home, but their actions in the service of our country had a very "public" affect on how we were viewed around the World.

I guess what I'm saying is that the young man joined the military and went to war. The war is a concern to all citizens. The press has the right (and yes... obligation) to cover the war. His actions, and their results, certainly are NOT protected by any legal "right" afforded to us by the Constitution. And, having attained legal age.... the family has no "legal" claim to privacy concerning him. HE had made the decision to participate in a very PUBLIC life. One the whole World is watching. And one the press has every RIGHT to report on.

Of course, once he is returned home to his family, they have the RIGHT to a private funeral and so on. Even Obama has to "ask" the press to curtail photos or reporting on his children. He has no RIGHT to such privacy when they are in public.

 

You have no right to force a private entity to publish whatever information you think they should. Had the AP chose to not publish the photo, you would have no right to the information. End of story. There is no FOIA for a private business. You are wrong.

The AP made a choice to publish the photo. They were under no obligation to do so. What is being disputed is whether they should have done it. I'm not sure if you have children, but I do, and if a reputable news organization chose to publish a photo of my dying son after I requested they not do so, I would be outraged, and I would consider it a violation of my family's privacy. The AP chose to benefit from his death.

 

As you are obviously "enraged," I will type slowly so you can understand with your mind instead of "hearing" with your heart...

Rev.Vassago said:

I never said "we" did. I said that the 1st Ammendment guarantees a FREE (from gov't control) PRESS predicated on the right of the PEOPLE to not have the government control what they SAY or HEAR. So... the PEOPLE cannot be denied their RIGHT to any information discovered, uncovered or covered by representatives of our "free" PRESS. As I'm sure you know, the Bill of Rights are considered "the people's rights" or INDIVIDUAL rights.

Actually.... I would STILL have a right to the information. As for FORCING a private entity to publish? It HAS been done!

Though not covered by the FOIA, many publishers have lost lawsuits that FORCED them to publish information they have discovered.... or retractions to articles.... or "public" information that they were trying to suppress. But, I was not talking about forcing the press to publish this photo that THEY OWNED. I was supporting LCH's contention that IF THEY WANTED to publish it, they were within their rights because I as a citizen HAVE the right to such information if available. Furthermore, even if they weren't forced to PUBLISH it, through a lawsuit they could be forced to "disclose it" if someone were so inclined to sue for that RIGHT to see it. Same thing with the government and the FOIA. They cannot be forced to PUBLISH some information by a lawsuit under the FOIA. But, they can be forced to "disclose" it to the party who wins the suit.

So I guess it is YOU who are wrong.

I understand that. The only reference to their "obligation" was relating to the basic PURPOSE of the press... which is to inform the public. No one said they were legally obligated to do so...only "morally" obligated as the EDUCATORS of the common people. You DO want them to be fair and balanced and show BOTH sides to every story, don't you? This was, in fact, the basis of their decision. Not to show JUST the happy photos of G.I.'s handing out candy to the children of Afghanistan.... but, also the terrible toll that this war is taking on America.

Again... my point was only to clarify that our Press is FREE solely because we as citizens have the RIGHT to a free press. Our press cannot be CENSORED by our government, nor ENJOINED by a private party, in any way that would inhibit them from publishing the TRUTH as they find it and report it. Obviously, they can be sued if it is NOT true.

Actually, that is only HALF of what is being discussed and disputed here. To date, I have concerned myself ONLY with the legal rights.

I have a child. I can't say how I would feel if her death (or wound) in battle were published. I'm quite sure I would follow my own beliefs as stated above that, if she were in a war somewhere it would not be a PRIVATE death. I certainly would not deign to believe that MY little life and sorrow outweighed the rights of the press, or the greater "need to know" of the public as to the realities of war. I would feel HONORED that representatives of the AP came to me first and showed me the pictures before publishing them. But, I don't know that I would think they would "hold the presses" just because I objected.

If you (or I) don't want our "family privacy" violated.... I suggest we find a way to keep our children out of WARS. Because wars make the newsreels.

You are making the assumption that the AP had a monetary consideration in "sensationalizing" the war. I'm not sure I agree. Does the AP have it's own newpaper? Do they get paid by "the piece" by the thousands of papers who DO publish their reports? I don't think so. They are a news "wire service." They (I believe) are paid by contract for using their content. It is the individual newspapers that decide whether to run the article/photo or not.

Point is.... they have no "papers to sell." They just report the news. Sec. Gates tried to get them to suppress the photo because he knew NEWSPAPERS would carry it (perhaps to sell papers,) but they overrode his request because they felt morally obligated to tell the WHOLE story of this war..... not just the side FOXNEWS wants us to see!

WE have the choice not to subscribe to a paper, or view a channel, if we object to the content THEY decide to use to garner ratings. But, the AP has every right (and yes.... obligation) to cover the news, and make it public without consideration of its political impact, or some individual's feelings about privacy.

 

Nobody has disputed their legal right. So I guess you're arguing with nobody. That whole "typing to see your words" thing.

As far as the rest, you are still wrong, and the press has a consistent history of self-censoring when it serves their own purpose.

 

Today, 10:54 AM
Rev.Vassago
Administrator
Board Icon
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The other side of the coin
Posts: 9,050




Quote:
Originally Posted by dobry4u
Apparently you left off the word US (US private citizen), as I have seen plenty of Holocaust and Hiroshima and other such war graphics to embed the horrific events in my mind forever.

Unless they were taken by the government, we have no right to see them. The AP had a right to publish the photo - that isn't the point. The point is that they ignored the wishes of the family for no good reason.

 

Is there a reason you quoted my post that states the AP had a legal right to publish the photo?

 

So.... this WHOLE thread was about the MORALITY of publishing the photos? GEE.... I could have sworn I responded to a discussion based on the 1st Ammendment.

Where, in ANY of this, was the question raised about the press "self censoring?" :hellno:

And, obviously.... you STILL don't see (or know) the difference between the AP wire news service and the privately owned newspapers who purchase their content because they don't have the resources to go out and find the news for themselves!

LOCAL, or national.... PRIVATE publications might skew their content for their own purposes. "self-censor" as you say. But, THEY were not the ones contacted by Sec. Gates. He went straight to the unbiased source of the news content, the AP, and begged them not to let out the truth of this dirty little war.

Maybe while you were zapping posts earlier (which I never saw) you should have zapped the ones about the 1st ammendment and the legalities of the situation. Then I would ONLY have seen the moral outrage and indignation and I could have responded to that.