technology vs. law vs. morality

[bododie]

Ga. Firefighter Suspended For Video Of Dead Woman

GRIFFIN, Ga. (AP) ― A Georgia county has suspended a firefighter for using his personal cell phone to take gruesome video of a woman killed in an SUV crash that was later received by the dead woman's parents.

Spalding County officials said in a statement that the firefighter has been placed on "investigatory suspension" while an outside firm determines whether any laws or internal policies were broken.

The firefighter, who was not identified, took a video of the injuries suffered by 23-year-old Dayna Kempson-Schacht, who died July 17 when her car crashed into trees. She died instantly.

The video spread after the firefighter shared it with his co-workers and others outside the department.

I can't imagine anyone thinking that this is O.K. on a moral level, but I know there will be arguments on the issue, and maybe even some valid points brought up.

Stuff like this is just going to keep escalating to the point that if someone points a cell phone camera at you, interesting things might happen. I know that pictures of me at social events have turned up on facebook, and I didn't even know they were taken. Good thing I don't act like a fool in public much.

It's not a big story really, but I thought it was an example of how the human mind and technology don't necessarily add up to a good thing on a consumer/professional level. Is it a power issue somehow?

I'm curious about opinions relative to the Constitution, etc.

got some?

 

[steveox]

What about traffic red light cameras? Isnt that against freedom of privacy?

 

[bododie]

Don't be absurd. That is not the same as a fireman, who wouldn't have been there in the first place and had access to the scene that he took video of. In public I imagine there is not a presumption of privacy, but is there at someone's home you are visiting?

Would you like it if some neanderthal took a picture of you pissing in your backyard while your'e wearing a bra, and your boss saw it on the internet, when you were up for a promotion? Lol.

 

[orogenicman]

Don't be absurd. That is not the same as a fireman, who wouldn't have been there in the first place and had access to the scene that he took video of. In public I imagine there is not a presumption of privacy, but is there at someone's home you are visiting?

Would you like it if some neanderthal took a picture of you pissing in your backyard while your'e wearing a bra, and your boss saw it on the internet, when you were up for a promotion? Lol.

Is that something you need to worrry about?

 

[bododie]

Is that something you need to worrry about?

Actually I try NOT to wear a bra as much as I can get away with, I'm my own boss, and my husband can piss in the backyard all he wants, 'cause he's his own boss too.
Lol.

 

[Dude111]

GRIFFIN, Ga. (AP) ― A Georgia county has suspended a firefighter for using his personal cell phone to take gruesome video of a woman killed in an SUV crash that was later received by the dead woman's parents.

Terrible!!

Sounds like the idiot was making fun of the situation!!

Very sad

 

[PLC1]

Is taking a video and sharing it the same as describing an incident and sharing it? If so, then is it free speech, and therefore protected by the First Amendment?

If it is OK to describe someone's gruesome injuries, pecadillos, embarrassing moments, or whatever and share it with friends, is it OK to video the same and share it?

Further, it is not too difficult to doctor a video so that it appears to show something that didn't happen. The same is true of telling about an incident. There is no guarantee that the description matched reality in either case.

Where does the right to privacy end and free speech begin? That is the question raised by this particular example.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I doubt any law was broken...but moraly its clearly wrong, and as a policy of the Dept I am guessing a clear violation ( I would hope so at least)

 

[orogenicman]

Is taking a video and sharing it the same as describing an incident and sharing it? If so, then is it free speech, and therefore protected by the First Amendment?

If it is OK to describe someone's gruesome injuries, pecadillos, embarrassing moments, or whatever and share it with friends, is it OK to video the same and share it?

Further, it is not too difficult to doctor a video so that it appears to show something that didn't happen. The same is true of telling about an incident. There is no guarantee that the description matched reality in either case.

Where does the right to privacy end and free speech begin? That is the question raised by this particular example.

Freedom of speech is not a guarantee that said speech won't cause people to think one is not a jerk.

 

[PLC1]

Freedom of speech is not a guarantee that said speech won't cause people to think one is not a jerk.

Oh, there is no doubt the guy was a jerk.

If we could actually pass a law against being a jerk, the fines could pay off the national debt.

 

[orogenicman]

Oh, there is no doubt the guy was a jerk.

If we could actually pass a law against being a jerk, the fines could pay off the national debt.

Sounds like a plan to me. There are simply too many jerks in the world for my taste.

 

[Shotgun314159]

Continually passing "nanny sate" laws is,
C R A P O L A

Railing against PC'ism then hollering about morality.
Man Up and Live Free.

When did upsetting someone's "dignity" it become a target for "The Law" ?

 

[Apathy]

Continually passing "nanny sate" laws is,
C R A P O L A

Railing against PC'ism then hollering about morality.
Man Up and Live Free.

When did upsetting someone's "dignity" it become a target for "The Law" ?

Do you have anything to worthwhile to add or is

T H I S

all you are capable of doing.

 

[numinus]

Where does the right to privacy end and free speech begin? That is the question raised by this particular example.

Your freedom of speech ends when it harms or incites others to commit a crime. Your privacy ends when it harms the common good.

 

[dahermit]

Your freedom of speech ends when it harms or incites others to commit a crime. Your privacy ends when it harms the common good.

"...Your privacy ends when it harms the common good. ..." Uh....As determined by who? That might be interpreted quite different in the former Soviet Union. A lot of crimes were perpetrated in the name of "common good."