We've all seen the gruesome visage of The Black Dahlia, her mouth sliced ear-to-ear in a violent version of The Joker's charactaristic grin; Sharon Tate's pregnant, stabbed belly is just a mouse-click away; Ted Bundy's victims Margaret Bowman and Lisa Levy's crime scene photos are public and searchable, should anyone want to find them. A judge has just ruled, however, that crime scene photos showing murdered hiker Meredith Emerson will not be published by Hustler Magazine, which seeks them for a story about the murder...
Meredith Emerson, 24, went missing on January 1, 2008 while hiking in Blairsville, Georgia. She was killed by Gary Michael Hilton who led investigators to her body 6 days later.
Georgia, USA's State Superior Court issued an order preventing the Georgia Bureau of Investigation from releasing "any and all photographs, visual images or depictions of Meredith Emerson which show Emerson in an unclothed or dismembered state." The same day, the Georgia House Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously passed The Meredith Emerson Memorial Privacy Act (House Bill 1322), which will prevent crime scene photos depicting victims "nude, bruised, bloodied or in a broken state with open wounds, a state of dismemberment or decapitation," from being publicly released.
The issue seems to be the connection between Meredith Emerson's nudity and the publication in known porn magazine Hustler, according to concerns expressed by Representative Jill Chambers, the bill's principal sponsor. She says that Meredith is not able to give her consent to appear nude in a magazine.
Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt have a long tradition of defying taboos and defending journalists' First Amdendment rights - and that's what this comes down to. Does Hustler have a right to publish these photos, even though they are of a woman's mutilated, nude body?
"Hustler is aware of the GBI's refusal to honor its reporter's request for copies of the Emerson crime scenes photos, which were to be used in a news story about this crime. Hustler and Mr. Flynt disagree with the GBI's position, and are currently exploring all legal options available to them should the decision be made to go forward with the story," said Flynt Publications.
"I think that the request is sickening, disgusting, vile and I think it's very, very hurtful for this family," Georgia House Speaker David Ralston said in a Monday press conference, as reported by CNN.
"Her family and friends live everyday with this tragedy and to know that the possibility of any images, other than those that portray the beautiful, young woman we knew, could be disclosed to the public or may be published would bring further stress and unnecessarily added grief over what is already too much sadness to bear."
Emerson's family calls Hustler's attempt to publish their nude, decapitated daughter 'shameless exploitation.'
While these photos are awful, are they more or less awful than images of war, soldiers dying, or the victims of the wars? What about images of animal deaths in National Geographic, or the victoms of natural disasters or of medical phenomenon? Of the recent tragedy in Haiti? If we don't release images publicly because of how 'awful' they are, we open ourselves to a new kind of censorship - a kind in which journalists, and the public, are unable to access photographs deemed too 'provocative' or 'awful' by a government body, which may have different standards of 'awful' than we do.
Does Meredith Emerson have any more right to privacy than Sharon Tate?
What do you think?
www.righttohikeinc.com is charity website established in Emerson's memory.
Comments
I'm still curious what they were really intending to do with it. Hustler doesn't tend to show "real death" photos. It's not their bag.
The whole thing is pretty curious.
You're right, Playboy has published some outstanding journalistic articles. However, if they were publishing a story about this killing, I doubt they would try to print pictures of the victim.
Hustler, on the other hand, has always been about sensationalism. While I can appreciate what Flynt has done to protect the First Amendment, I can't help but think that he often hides behind it while printing things with no other goal but to generate increased sales of his magazine.
I don't think this should be a matter of morality and he should be able to write his article and publish those pictures.
I don't think journalism should be written off just because it's in a porn magazine. I've never read Hustler but I have read Playboy, you know for the articles, and there is stuff in there that is just as good as anything in Time. In fact, the absolute best interview Stanley Kubrick ever gave was for Playboy.
I should add that personally I think it's wrong and I don't know why anyone would want to see photos like that and I will never understand some peoples fascination with true crime. I'm sure an article could be written without photos. Still, I might find this instance immoral but what about some other time when someone wants to write an article and publish photos that I think are perfectly acceptable but someone else feels is immoral. Now it might be much easier to get a judge to block those as well.
This issue sickens me.
Hustler may be within it's rights, but I'd hardly call it a journalistic magazine. And Flynt only protects the First Amendment when his profits are threatened.
You can not equate war photos, which can affect an entire nation (let alone the world) to a dismembered, nude murder victim. The release of such photos will not inform the public of anything, but only serve to increase revenue for those who seek to profit from such publicity.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Sometimes words alone are enough.
"I think that the request is sickening, disgusting, vile and I think it's very, very hurtful for this family," Georgia House Speaker David Ralston said in a Monday press conference, as reported by CNN.
Was he getting blown by a Congressional page when he made this statement?
This effort to seal Emerson's photos is a red herring. It's part of a larger effort to seal and gag any and all public records on Gary Michael Hilton.
I know this because I have been following this case for 3 years. Hilton killed my friend, nurse Cheryl Dunlap of Crawfordville, before driving to Georgia and killing Meredith. It is also highly probable he killed a couple others during the trip.
But hardly a shred of information on Hilton has been released. Including where he is being held right now. Gary Michael Hilton, and any info on his half-century killing spree across the East Coast, has been locked tight since 2007 when he was arrested.
Emerson's case is closed and a guilty plea was accepted. There is absolutely NO LEGAL REASON for the crime scene photos, along with the rest of the case file, to be sealed. Unless there is stuff in there that nobody wants us to know. Just like with the rest of Hilton's life. Somebody is keeping us from looking into him.
THE GBI fed the photo story to the media to generate outrage and support for sealing the Hilton case files. The veteran true-crime writer who requested the Emerson case file for a story he is writing for Hustler was not just seeking photos. Yet read the news stories -- they make it sound like that's all he wanted, and they name Hustler, not Fred Rosen, the reporter who made the request.
Rosen wants to do a story on Hilton. Finally. And somebody is trying to stop him. Many somebodies.
Read the stories about the "Hustler photos." Does it mention anywhere in there that Hilton is being held for first-degree murder, or where? Or that as soon as his Florida trial (if it ever happens, which looks more and more doubtful every passing year), Hilton is set to be whisked to N.C. to stand trial for the slayings of elderly couple John and Irene Bryant, who were also hiking.
Then ask yourself. Why isn't any of this mentioned in the Emerson/Hustler stories? Not one word.
>>"Any citizen, press, or media member has the right to request any documents at any time, including police and arrest records, city and state budgets, public workers salary info, voting records for Congressmen, etc, and that includes crime scene photos taken during a police investigation."
Not everything is automatically subject to public disclosure. There is long standing legislation in the state (and presumably elsewhere in the nation as well) that excludes photos used in autopsies to be part of public disclosure laws. It is a bit of a loophole that corpses fresh on the scene are not. Dead on the autopsy slab - no go. Dead fresh on the ground - have some photographs.
The bill that Georgia is proposing would seal this loophole and make it a little more consistent. Photos of nude and dismembered crime victims would no longer be subject to public disclosure laws whether at the crime scene, or on the autopsy table.
This is the bill:
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/versions/hb1322_LC_21_0771_a_...
It just passed today, unanimously.
This is because ....
are you ready?
... I'm getting my MASTER'S Degree in Journalism, so I know EVERYTHING.
All government agency activities, except IRS personal tax returns and govt employee personal information, CIA, and Pentagon, are a matter of public record unless a court 'seals' the records because of imminent danger to an individual involved. Any citizen, press, or media member has the right to request any documents at any time, including police and arrest records, city and state budgets, public workers salary info, voting records for Congressmen, etc, and that includes crime scene photos taken during a police investigation.
The only time court records are usually sealed is if a witness is identified who could be harmed, or a minor is involved, or there are extreme cirumstances. This doesn't seem to be one of them.
Hustler is saying they SHOULD release the photos because as of right now they are public record. The family is attempting to 'seal' areas of the investigation, to make them not public record.
>>"The photos are a matter of public record."
I freely admit I do not know all the details of this case. I wasn't aware that the images were in the status of "public record". Since they have been refused to the magazine, I had assumed they were not public record, and that Hustler was effectively calling for them to become public record.
And Tristan, I have to ask - if you allow the court to NOT give in to the demands of the press because it is tacky, will you be upset the NEXT time they refuse to release info? Because when you say the Police, the Courts, or the Govt have the right to refuse information to the press for any reason, you're asking for it. Next time it will be war records and photos. It will be finance info, budget numbers, statistics of our jails and mental institutions, and you'll never know what's true and not true again.
So, next time this happens and it is something YOU really want to see/know, but the courts won't release it because the Iraq war images would be 'hurtful' to the families of the soldiers, will you bitch? because it'll be your fault.
The photos are a matter of public record. Things are a matter of 'public record' so that the 'people' have access to them. That includes most criminal records and photos. If they haven't been 'sealed', and these haven't, then they are fair game to the public. And by public i mean 'press and their readers'.
How else do you think such photos are obtained by ANY magazine, or newspaper, or media outlet?
You think the police just hand out crime scene photos and police reports, or make random press conference calls for no reason? No.
When the press DEMANDS a press conference on the state of an investigation, that's when you get one. When Hustler demands photos, that's when they get published.
There is no imaginary press agent rabbit hopping from the FBI, the White House, the Police Dept, and to each and every magazine passing out info. It takes gumption, insistence, smarts, and determination to acquire the 'news' that people take for granted every day.
>>"At some point, journalists have to be free to print unpleasant shit"
It's not the printing that I'm balking at myself - it's the forceful requisition of the photographs. Hustler currently does not possess the images, and are arguing the courts should have to fork them over to them.
If they already had legally obtained the photos, then I agree they could print them. But I can't quite bring myself to think that the court should be subject to Hustler's demand in this regard.
I think hustler should be ABLE to print the images. legally. I just would urge them desperately not to.
At some point, journalists have to be free to print unpleasant shit, even if it is disrespectful. But This is not a case where there is enoughnewsworthiness to make it ethical. It is exploitation.
I think for the sake of Hustler readers, they just shouldn't print those pics. If you are hard up enough that you are still rubbing one out to a magazine in 2010, I'm probably not going out on a limb when I assume that if you are flipping through pages during an intense wank session and you come across a dismembered and beheaded naked chick, it is definitely going to ruin your day.
LOL
Well, I guess some people really are starved for attention then.
If I was sexually assaulted and killed whilst hitching, which is unlikely as a) I don't hitch-hike and b) I'm a short fat and bald 40 year old bloke, then I'd be quite happy if my photograph appearing in a magazine reminded a few young ladies of the dangers of hiking and stopped them from putting themselves in danger.
For one, putting a picture of any sort in a magazine is done for entertainment value, and to degrade anybody's brutal and horrible murder to just that is sickening. Second, the family should have rights at all times (unless stated in the deceased's will) to crime scene photos. TheIglooKeeper: the best place to show these images is in a file in a police department cabinet. I know personally, that if I were on a hike somewhere and happened to be, I dunno, sexually assaulted then mauled to death, then on top of that I have millions of people looking at my naked and bloodied corpse in a magazine of any kind would just be an ultimate degredation on top of a degredation. I swear to god I'd come back and haunt the living shit out of whoever was retaded enough to publish those photos. Seriously. I'd raise hell.
Shannon Tate and the others that were mentioned deserve some human respect for life. I think that's the main issue here-- respect. How much better are we than the killer themselves if we show these poor people a similar lack of respect? I love horror, but I don't love real life horror, I'll tell you that.
Sorry for the rant, and possible errors in spelling or grammar. My computer is probably infected.
... then again. maybe an 'over 18's' magazine is the best place to show these images.
The ideal situation would, of course, be for murders like these not to be committed. But since they are, I think that there are sometimes valid reasons for showing them (I'm not necessarily saying that Hustler has valid reasons mind you) and that any censorship legislation could easily be manipulated for political ends. Like covering up the endless civilian casualties in Iraq.
I'm not quite sold. I do acknowledge the right of freedom of information used in trials is a good one - that said, I think the right for a family to withhold intimate details (e.g., crime scene photographs) is very important.
Hustler's interest certainly is distasteful, if nothing else. Who the hell wants to mix death with their porn?
I think Hustler is using very poor taste, even if they are within their legal rights.
I think is beyond disgusting I think photos of a dead person violates people's right to privacy. I don't think they should of done that for Sharon Tate either or for anyone for that matter. If anyone is murdered or died in such a violent way and is captured on film that should be kept private.
I think if it was a magazine other than Hustler (or the like) I would find this debatable. The fact that they want a photo of a naked (dismembered?) woman in their porn magazine kind of freaks me out.
Perhaps if it was going to be released in a magazine such as Life magazine (which I know is gone now) etc it would be a different story.
What kind of person would want to look at a naked Hustler model and then flip the page and find a crime scene photo of a naked brutally murdered woman? It's connecting two things that I would not want to be connected. At all.
That's how I feel about the issue. I feel that these photos should be the "property" of the family and should not be released without their consent. I think that consent is more important than "censorship" in this case (I won't say all cases).