Gruesome death photos are at the forefront of an Internet privacy battle

[tonysam]

Three weeks after his 18-year-old daughter sped away in his Porsche and swerved to her death in Lake Forest, Christos Catsouras understood why he had not been allowed to see her body.

Photographs of the Halloween 2006 crash, taken and leaked by the California Highway Patrol, were proliferating on the Internet. The crash had left his daughter unrecognizable.

Catsouras said he found 35 websites — and soon hundreds more — that showcased the macabre photographs, some with headlines that mocked his daughter. When he took them to the attention of CHP officials and pleaded for help, he said, they told him there was nothing they could do. "They said if we wanted to file a complaint, we could file a complaint."

The result: a lawsuit that, even though it has yet to go to trial, has reshaped the boundaries of privacy law in the Internet age.

Much more from the L.A. Times

[ellie]

1. Am I reading this right?

The highway patrol dispatchers posted the photos online and there is no law against that? How is this not a privacy issue? And they are hiding behind a "tradition"? People are really sick. The Internet has just raised the stakes in how sick and twisted people can be.

[tonysam]

3. Did you read some of the comments following the article?

People are vile and absolutely sick.

I also don't believe crime scene photographs and autopsy photos should be allowed on the internet, either. They are for investigative purposes only, not for public consumption. To make "arguments" about accidents being on public highways and therefore accident photos serve some kind of public interest is asinine. These people are the kind who get off on snuff films.

[ellie]

10. Ugh.

People really suck. I like how people are equating having a $90,000 car is like having a gun in the house. What does that have to do with the issue of privacy? This girl could have been run over crossing the street and the photos posted online. It has nothing to do with how much money the family has. I hope the family wins and privacy laws rewritten.

[tonysam]

13. I do, too. I hope this would extend to murder photographs and autopsy pictures as well.

There is no public interest in having these types of pictures posted on the internet.

[Codeine]

28. There doesn't need to be a "public interest."

I see no "public interest" clause in the First Amendment.

[G_j]

20. "people" have put shows like CSI at the top of ratings around the world

and I agree people are sick.

[hlthe2b]

8. I side with the family for sure.. But I remember being shown horrific

fire photos and footage during "fire safety" presentations at school that included some similarly graphic content. It bothered me for years and I always wondered if they had the family's permission to use this. While the patrol members who allowed this to happen may be twisted, callous, or greedy, it may also be that they have some bizarre sense of righteousness in doing so--as though they would be used to stop others from such wildly destructive behavior...

Either way, I hope the family prevails.

[tonysam]

12. It's a lot different now with the internet

Anybody can get access to anything, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

[Codeine]

37. I think it's a fabulous thing.

Nobody can ever have too much free access to information, even that deemed inappropriate by others.

[AnArmyVeteran]

22. Anonymity shows the true nature of people. It's frightening and sickening.

[petronius]

41. I think a law would be difficult to craft in such a way that free speech and access

to public records were protected, and I guess CHP policy (like a lot of agencies) hasn't kept up with advances in information technology. That's the part that surprises me most - when I was an undergrad in the '90s I worked in a police department, and they were very strict with crime scene photos and personal details...

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I remember reading about this when it first happened

Hope this family wins big.

[HipChick]

4. IIRC...weren''t the photo's emailed to the family?

[tonysam]

5. Yep. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Oh god! Who does that?!

[tonysam]

7. CHP dispatchers who should have been fired on the spot

I can't believe the whole thing.

[aikoaiko]

9. This case seemed to involve an obvious breach of professional ethics and I would have thought policy

But perhaps not.

On the other hand, I'm cautious about laws that might interfere with the public's right to information and documentation gathered by public agencies.

[tonysam]

11. There is NO public interest here, only sick individuals get off on this stuff

It's no better than watching a snuff film.

[aikoaiko]

18. I don't like what happened to this family, but I'd have to look carefully at the text of laws

that prevented the public from accessing the work products of government agencies.

Sometimes living in a free country allows people to exploit that freedom and do crappy things, but liberties must be preserved or at least carefully balanced with other issues.

[Angry Dragon]

42. Hard copies could be available

One could go and see them if the need arose..no reason to post them

[Greyhound]

36. Yes, there is. The same public interest that demands that the Nazi's be permitted

their parade in Skokie. Defending inoffensive speech is nothing, defending the offensive is freedom.

Of course this act was inexcusable and should be, if it isn't already, actionable.

[rrneck]

14. As long as the privacy

of the people in the images is protected, rather than the privacy of the police, I'm good with it. It's not a bad idea, in the interest of investigative transparency, for the public to have access to evidence collected by the state.

Corporate privacy is another matter...

[saigon68]

16. But But

according to Roberts corporations are individuals too

[Robb]

15. In the abstract, if the images were collected by public agencies

...they belong in the public sphere.

Specifically, I believe using those images to inflict emotional harm on the families is reprehensible and probably illegal.

I see a similarity to the soldier's family who didn't want their dead son's name on the anti-war t-shirt. The information was collected by a public agency, and released publicly, and there was no clear intent to do harm to the family.

[tonysam]

17. There is NO public interest served by posting the photos. Period. It doesn't matter who took them.

Hiding behind no "intent" to "inflice harm" is hogwash in this instance and in publishing murder photos and autopsy photos.

Nobody in the general public has any need for them; murder scene photographs, autopsy photographs, and accident photographs are merely for investigative purposes--they are NOT for public consumption. And they should NEVER, EVER be posted on the internet.

[Robb]

21. "Nobody" and "never" don't work here.

I'll admit it would be rare for public interest to be served by the release of an autopsy photo, for example. But it does happen, and not allowing them to be available adds an obscuring layer to the criminal justice system that I don't care for.

Some, indeed much, crime scene photography contains imagery of dead people. Shall we make all crime scene photography and footage taken by police investigators sealed to the public? I don't see that serving the public interest.

[hlthe2b]

26. the Zapruder film comes to mind in that respect...

There is definitely a public interest to be served in that instance.

[Leftist Agitator]

32. The 1st Amendment doesn't have a "public interest" clause. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

53. so if i go to a publicly funded rape clinic, anyone should have access to the records &

photos of my vagina?

i don't think so.

public money goes to many such services; psychiatric services, juvenile services, drug services, etc. that doesn't mean the clients don't have a right to privacy. that doesn't mean any photos or records created with public money are thrown open to the public.

[Berry Cool]

19. These photos were DELIBERATELY emailed, without warming, to the family,

complete with words of joking mockery, with the deliberate intent of putting them through even more agony than they were already going through.

I hope the family wins big.

I have never understood the point of grisly accident movies or still images being available to the public. Too many people get off on them or mock the victims for their own fun and amusement.

I have always thought abhorrent the practice of making movies and video of these accidents and showing them to drivers' ed classes to attempt to impress upon them the importance of safe driving. The kids who really need to get the message won't get it anyway--they've emotionally buffeted themselves from the reality of the images and will only use them as a topic for mockery, and the other more emotionally sensitive ones stand to be painfully haunted by them for life--and they don't NEED to be shown these images to understand the importance of safe driving. So they don't work on those who need them most, and they emotionally scar those who need them least. Not to mention being a horrible affront to the dignity a dead body deserves, in my book. People's dead bodies shouldn't be a public commodity for anyone. They should be treated with respect. If they will their bodies to science and permit them to be dissected for educational purposes, that's one thing. But no one should be forced to serve, after death, as a lesson to others or as a means of amusement or entertainment for others.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. Without warming? So they were too cold?

:)

[Codeine]

29. I microwave all gruesome death photos

for at least 30 seconds prior to emailing.

[AnArmyVeteran]

24. What I find disturbing is you can see graphic violence, but not people making love.

What a twisted world we live in. You can show all kinds of graphic violence, but not intimate acts of love between people.

[depakid]

48. That's a matter for tort law to handle

and I'll have to beg to differ about showing the REALITY of what happens to people who drive irresponsibly.

IMO- there needs to be a lot more of that before people get their licenses- and after they've committed certain driving offenses.

[Taitertots]

25. Emotions don't trump freedom of speech

There is no qualifier that things need to be in the public interest to be put on the internet. If anything the exact opposite is true, that freedom of speech protects things that are not in the public interest.

[Codeine]

27. Precisely.

Everybody loves the First Amendment, except when they don't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. I agree.

People are assholes. The first amendment protects their right to tell us that they are.

[Wilber_Stool]

31. A young girl.

a very beautiful girl, has a fight with her father, snorts a mess of cocaine and goes out for a two hour joy ride in his Porsche. She runs into a Honda that flips her car into a concrete toll boot5h and it smashes her fucking brains out. The two people in the Honda were uninjured. They were lucky. Not only do I think that they should be accessed, I think all high schoolers should be forced to see them. One fuck up could be your last.


In case you're interested:http://www.welcometowallyworld.com/nikki-catsouras-car-crash-phot/

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. Sad on so many levels

[TheFarseer]

33. Yikes! Why would you want to see that? n/t

[Rex]

34. I would think this would fall under free expression.

Though I agree with a lot of posters here - people that post (much less make websites dedicated to death) this kind of smut/porn are sick, twisted and wrong.

[MrSlayer]

35. Those photos should be shown to every high school driving class.

I've seen them and they are gruesome. If they make even one kid think twice about driving like a maniac it will be worth it.

[TheMightyFavog]

44. Don't tell me they don't show the gory pictures and/or films in Driver's Ed anymore...

That was all part of the education.

[NYC Liberal]

38. Yes, there are two forums I know of dedicated to crime scene/death photos.

The comments are actually more disturbing than the photos are.

[Codeine]

40. Rotten.com used t have some similar material.

Gruesome, but undeniably fascinating.

[NYC Liberal]

51. The ones I was thinking of both had/have "reality" in their names.

I know that one and also one with a "Shrek-like" name.

I can tell you that it makes you appreciate how quickly death can happen.

[tonysam]

47. People get off on this garbage

Take a look at the comments following the OP article link. Many of them are disturbing.

[greencharlie]

43. I hope the punitive damages are HUGE. I mean like hundreds of millions. nt

[Codeine]

45. What damages?

Seriously, what is the damage here?

[tonysam]

46. You can't figure that out? n/t

[Codeine]

54. There's no damage

None.

[depakid]

49. Punitive damages against whom?

the people who behaved reprehensibly?

Or the state?

[Cetacea]

50. Drivers should see some of what our police have to see quite frequently.

[Hannah Bell]

52. I don't get it. why do anonymous people on the internet have access to his daughter's

crash photos?

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. The cops had the pics and sent them out