Yes.... because the first line was that WE THE PEOPLE (paraphrased) had NO RIGHT to see them. I have not disputed that you said the newspaper had a right to publish them. I have been supporting the statement that WE THE PEOPLE had a right to see them..... which you have clearly stated we DID NOT!

Furthermore, I quoted it as only ONE example that the discussion so far HAS been P A R T L Y about LEGAL RIGHTS.... not the morality of it all.

 

A point which you are wrong about.

 

I was JUST thinking the same thing about you! :roll:

LCH knows what I was talking about. Even DOBRY made a remark that went over YOUR head about how it is okay (apparently) to show images of death as long as they are not OUR citizens!

I'm about done here. It's hard enough to explain MY posts to you. It is even HARDER when I have to explain that YOUR OWN, and many others referenced the simple question of legal RIGHTS (not moral ones) for the public to see these pictures.

 

Again, the public has no legal rights to see anything produced by a private organization. Short of protecting itself from a libel suit by printing a retraction, the press cannot be compelled to publish anything, thanks to the first amendment. If you'd like to dispute that, cite the relevant law.

 

Rev.Vassago said:

Well, that WASN'T the contention, but again you are wrong. There have been numerous cases where Greenpeace (for example) have sued to force oil companies (and others) to produce studies they've made and suppressed. Your post (that I originally responded to) gave the impression that ONLY the government could be forced to reveal (not necesarily publish) photos, or more specifically that we had no RIGHTS to any photos UNLESS they were taken by the government. We have the RIGHT to see any photos the press wants to publish.... and through lawsuits COULD see photos they DON'T want to publish.

Again you are wrong, but I tire of instructing you on the legal precedents of the Op-ed page, etc. Again.... that was NOT the point of the argument. It was NOT about what the press can be FORCED to publish.... but about the peoples' right to have a free press.

You really don't understand the 1st ammendment.... do you? Although it DOES protect the press from being forced to be a government indoctrination service, that was NOT the purpose of the ammendment. It was for the protection of FREE and uncensored speech for the public good and information.

I haven't the time to research it.... but, why don't YOU find the law that requires newspapers to publish "public notices" of divorce, bankruptcy, legal indemnification of partnerships, etc. and THEN tell me there are NO LAWS forcing the press to publish certain things!

But again..... you have turned the entire discussion around to a negative, when we were talking about a positive. It's been fun, but I'm tired of it.

As was stated earlier.... the FREE PRESS has been publishing pictures of war and death for over 100 years now. The people HAVE A RIGHT to know what goes on there. Without knowledge there can BE no "informed vote."

I'm sorry for the family. But they are not the only ones who've had a son die in war.... OR had their son appear in a picture of war. There have been hundreds of thousands of such pictures over the years between newsprint and T.V. coverage. If EVERYONE could claim such privilege of privacy, the World would think WAR was just a chess game.... or that the dead were JUST A NUMBER!

We've established the RIGHT of the Press to publish.

And the people's RIGHT to know.

YOU have not proven the family's RIGHT to privacy (as applied here.)

All that is left is "morality" and the opinions of SOME here that the AP is the "bad guy" for reporting the truth about war.... or because they didn't stop their ENTIRE operation.... indeed NULLIFY their charter...to cater to the wims of a grieving family. ONE of many THOUSANDS! :hellno:

It's no wonder we are losing these wars! "THEY" were right! America doesn't have the STOMACH for this kind of fight anymore!

 

NO HOBO. Not a matter of coming down on "free press". A matter of anyone going too far. Dragging "HUMAN RESPECT" through the gutter. Pravda ain't got nuttin to do with it. It's a matter of respect and human dignity. Or course, when has "free press" ever had respect for human dignity?

 

With every right comes an obligation.

If our press is to enjoy its freedom it has an affirmative obligation to report all the true facts of those matters which affect us as citizens. That means that it should not withhold that which some may find offensive.

I actually took the time to read the news story which the offending photo was a part of. Based on my reading my opinions are;

1.The story in question was well written and factual.
2.The photos (all of them, not just the one of cpl. Bernard) added value and context to the story.
3.The photo of cpl. Bernard showed him alive.
4.The photo in question did not allow one to distinguish facial features or any detail of his wounds.

I think that there are many more dimensions to this some on this site wish to acknowledge. Here is a portion of a story that ran in The New York Times;

A check on Friday found the story had been used on at least 20 newspaper front pages. None used the picture of a mortally wounded Bernard on the front page, although it was used inside newspapers and on Web sites like the Huffington Post.
The Newark, N.J., Star-Ledger ran a picture of Bernard's memorial service on its front page and the ambush picture inside. Editor Jim Willse said it was ''not a difficult decision for us,'' and said it would have run the ambush picture out front ''if the story had been presented differently.''
The Wheeling, W.Va., Intelligencer ran the photo inside and an editorial explaining why it did ''after hours of debate.''
''Too often, we fear, some Americans see only the statistics, the casualty counts released by the Department of Defense,'' the newspaper wrote. ''We believe it is important for all of us to understand that behind the numbers are real men and women, sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice, for us.''
Not all of its readers agreed: One woman, having seen the picture in the Intelligencer, made an angry, emotional phone call to AP spokesman Paul Colford to protest it.
The Portland (Me.) Press-Herald ran an editor's note with the story saying it had received the photo but believed it would be in ''poor taste'' to publish it. Bernard was raised in New Portland, Me.
While the story was being written, an AP reporter visited the home of John and Sharon Bernard to learn more about their son. The couple was shown Jacobson's pictures, and requested that they not be used. In a later fact-checking phone call, John Bernard asked in stronger terms that the photos not be used, Daniszewski said.
Although the family was shown the pictures ahead of time as a courtesy, ''we did not ask permission'' to use them, Daniszewski said.
''There was no question that the photo had news value,'' he said. ''But we also were very aware the family wished for the picture not to be seen. That created a difficult choice between our job to document the war and our respect for the suffering of the corporal's family.''
During lengthy internal discussions, the family issue was the most difficult, he said. Ultimately, the AP concluded that ''the photo itself is a part of the war we needed to cover and convey.''
The AP had received dozens of e-mails and phone calls about its decision by mid-Friday, many of them critical, Colford said. It was a topic on Twitter, with one tweet saying: ''as the wife of a retired Marine, and the mother of a soldier who is now in Afghanistan, I find the AP's `choice' to be a disgusting one.''
The Huffington Post put the picture on its front page Friday under the headline, ''Snapshot of an Unseen War.'' It provoked a vigorous debate among its readers. One wrote: ''This just isn't right. The man is dead. Not injured. Dead. Just wrong.''
The AP received an e-mail from some former military supporting its decision. Dan Cahalan, an Afghanistan veteran, wrote that ''this is one of the realest accounts from a journalist I have ever read and just wanted to thank (Jacobson) for her honest reporting of the war.''
Jorge Ruiz of Glendale, Ariz., said he and other ex-Marines had often talked about the sanitation of war and the social implications of a lack of images showing what war is really like.
''Death and the ugliness of war is not something we look forward to but a necessity to put the war in its proper context,'' said Ruiz, who also wrote the AP. ''A picture is worth a thousand words. I applaud your courage to distribute the photo and the story of the death of Lance Cpl. Bernard.'

 

Bottom line is that there's right and wrong. The AP was wrong and acted in a disrespectful manner. So you guys can sight all the constitutional wherefors, theretos, and what nots all you want, it was still wrong. Did they really need that one photo???? NO they didn't.

There will be another family that won't mind and if that's the case publish the photo all they want, I don't care. One family asked that their son not be shown, and that should have been respected.

 

issedoff: It's statements like this that cause me to cross the line when posting here. I truly hope it is never you that is sitting there grieving for your son or daughter and have your/their life used to promote an agenda. If you want to, that is YOUR choice, as it should ALWAYS be. The AP was wrong!

 

It's a waste of time when these self serving types agree fully with the agenda.. It was a mistake to even post the article here. This is the exact same defense that is used by the kiddie porn types and those who produce it. They have spoken and have declared it their business to view other people's family members after being mortally injured in wars.. they will declare that they have the right to do so. The next thing will be them venting about all the rights that they have supposedly lost in the last 10 years and not be able to come up with a single instance of anyone's rights actually being taken away. I'm not sure why these creatures are getting their rocks off viewing these pictures and or documents about these fallen men.. but It's no longer shocking to me.

To me its just more selective cowardice from the same old sources. If these cowards think that showing pictures of dead Americans on the front pages is doing anything to keep people from serving, its just their same poor rational HOPING that it may give them or other selective cowards some lame excuse to keep them safe from having to serve. I can tell you that my son's death did nothing to dissuade the men around that day him from serving no matter what these cowards say, the men who survived the blast in the same truck, who were taking fire after the EFP mortally wounded my son, who pulled my horribly injured son from the burning vehicle with his gunner still returning fire while BEING burned on his legs while the medic tried to save his life. Only exploding ordnance forced them to drag my kid away from the site.. they all were there fighting for my son. They helped board him up and walked him to the rear of the convoy to be medivaced out. They saw all of this and a couple of hours later discovered that my son had died of his wounds. All of these men are still serving and after this event and many more like it, still go and serve for those who damn them for doing so.. Unlike the posters here, They viewed a lot more than a picture in a newspaper while sitting on the their sorry, selective yellow asses in their comfy little protected worlds. They go on and this type of American always has and always will.

So rest well and think that these men and their families don't matter enough to you to be protected by gawkers and self serving media types and the liberal blue noses that they serve. These men are something more than a tool to me. I guess that makes me a mind numbed robot.. oh well..

Enjoy yourselves.. I'll not waste the time here any longer.