1st Amendment Freedom vs 4th Amendment Privacy

There are presently court cases on the docket which are set to decide the public's right to information against the victims' right to privacy. In question, thanks to the diligence of men like Larry Flynt, is whether or not grizzly crime scene photos may be published in the interest of public safety and information. First Amendment activists are quick to point out that the freedom of information is protected, and for the sake of knowing how our tax dollars are spent, we should be able to view all material related to judicial matters and decide for ourselves if our interests are adequately represented.

The Fourth Amendment conversely protects us from unreasonable search and seizure, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that private matters are not public domain, and shall not be so unless there is probable cause to indicate a crime has been committed. Journalists, and other publishers like Mr. Flynt, are demanding that crime scene and autopsy photos be made available, regardless of the risks or damage that may befall the victims or surviving family.

I am torn over this issue because I don't believe there should be a cap on information, and if I make an exception for the exorbitance of the human cost, I must concede that other exceptions may exist. What I find laughable is that media outlets are only contesting the family's requests for injunctions against the release of such photo's in high profile cases, which necessitate the injunctions in the first place. If this is such a critical topic, then journalists should be requesting access to ALL crime scene and autopsy photos, and yet they do not. This reveals one of the fundamental truths about news media, which most people forget, and that is that at it's top level, news is a business. And fundamental to all business, they must remain competitive. To do so, they must be reporting on the hot-button issues of the day, which they claim is only possible if they have access to those pictures.

I personally believe it is shameful that media mongers have discovered the price of a murder victim's dignity, and it's value is a market share.

I therefore propose a simple fix to this conundrum. If the media is so intent on having access to photos and videos of death, let's give it to them. In a two step process, they will have all the access they desire. Consider the following:

1. Media companies wishing to examine and/or publish crime scene and autopsy photos must submit a proposal, outlining the intended purpose of the story and projected impact on public safety, to an independent review board that will determine the validity and viability of the proposal. The submission of the proposal will cost the company a nominal fee, from which the board will draw operating expenses, and the excess of which will be contributed to crime prevention programs nationwide.


2. Upon successful review of their proposal, the board will grant access to the requested material, which will come as part of a package bundled with case files from 99 other non-news worthy violent crimes. After reviewing the photos associated with those 99 other cases, the news agency will then have access to the photos pertinent to their segment on the 11 o'clock news, to use as prescribed by law.

If they want information, let give it to them. All of it. If they want to make a buck off of a murder, let's sell it to them at a premium.