Montana legislators vote against restricting media photos

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


Matt Volz, Associated Press Updated 12:48 pm, Monday, February 27, 2017



HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Proposed legislation in Montana to restrict the news media's publication of fatal accident photographs on social media until the victims' next of kin is notified stalled Monday amid concerns that it would violate press freedom rights.

The Montana House Judiciary Committee voted 12-7 against the bill by Amanda Curtis of Butte, a state lawmaker who is seeking the Democratic nomination in a special election expected to be held later this year for the state's only U.S. House seat.

The measure would have forced news organizations to delay posting photos that would have made it possible to identify the victim of a fatal accident on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, including pictures of the victims' vehicles.

Photos published on news organization's websites would not be restricted under the bill, and it would not have limited individuals from posting similar photos on their own social media.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Legislative-panel-votes-against-restricting-media-10962536.php

[7962]

1. What bullshit. That doesnt violate the freedom of the press at all.

Jackals
No one's family needs to find out about a death by seeing it in the news

[cstanleytech]

2. No, it would infringe on the press.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It specifically states they cannot make "any" law that abridges the freedom of the press which this would do, should the press wait to publish a bit? Sure I think but thats just my opinion the Constitution though allows them to publish whenever they want.

[7962]

3. Then its fine to publish rape victims names as well. Or underage victims

I mean, since there shouldnt be ANY restrictions?
They could still publish a story about an accident without pictures or names. Very simple.

[cstanleytech]

4. Some of the courts have been already ruling against such laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law#Identification_of_alleged_rape_victims_by_media_outlets

Its the press and its legally protected, its like guns in a way the Constitution protects ownership of them and the governments hands are limited on what it can and cannot do as far as gun laws go and that is why it cannot outright ban all guns.
If you want it to be changed then fine amend the Constitution but otherwise there isnt to much that can legally be done that wouldnt be thrown out by the court in the long run.