Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

Thoughts on a proposed bill that would prevent release of images, audio of Sandy Hook

..."HARTFORD, Conn. — The public release of any photograph, videotape or digital recording related to last year's deadly Newtown elementary school shooting would require the written consent of victims' family members, according to a working draft of a bill released Wednesday by the governor's office.

 The bill, crafted privately by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's office, the state's top prosecutor and legislative      leaders, also would cover any recording depicting the physical condition of any of the victims of the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. 

While I understand about not wanting the pictures of the kids that were killed, or their families, folks have the choice of NOT looking at those pictures. This is such a slippery slope the govt is undertaking. If this bill would pass, we all know it will not stop with that. There would be another story, and the govt or whomever thinks it might offend tender eyes, or has something in it that could be graphic whatever the case, its against our 1st amendment rights, and it states this...

           ..........."The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the                making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press....

The DOJ and the Obama Admin already got ahold of the AP documents, and violated the 1st amendment, and the 4th amendment!! And Obama is trying really really hard at revoking our 2nd amendment rights,  or at least severely curtailing them and now this? Granted this bill is not being drafted by the federal govt, this was done on the state level.  But the fact remains, what our forefathers fought and died for is in serious jeopardy.

 I do have much sympathy for all of those families, I was sick to my stomach when that happened, and it made me cry and hug my dd, you cannot go against the constitution, its there for a reason, and it is what makes America different from the rest of the world. Like I said earlier,  anyone has the right not to look at any of those pics, just like we have the freedom of speech. 

This, although should really make for an interesting case for the Supreme Court.  IMO, Sandy Hook should be as wide open as possible to put to rest conspiracy theories and hoax claims. It should also serve as training material for all interested in preventing future occurrences.

Answer Question

Asked by Michigan-Mom74 at 2:53 AM on May. 27, 2013 in Politics & Current Events

Level 34 (66,351 Credits)
Answers (16)
  • I agree with others, while I understand why they wouldn't want them released/shown, they can not limit the constitutional right to do so.

    Answer by tntmom1027 at 2:55 AM on May. 27, 2013

  • I personally shielded myself from a lot of what happened in Connecticut, by choice. What those families have gone through is utterly tragic, and don't believe the images and interviews should be exploited to further people's political agendas. But I fear that legislation limiting the press like that, as well-intentioned as it might be, would set a very bad precedent toward allowing legal censorship.

    Answer by Ballad at 3:05 AM on May. 27, 2013

  • I think it was meant more to protect families of those victims from accidentally seeing a photo that might upset them or that could possibly be manipulated by some sick bastard that thinks it's funny to edit the footage into something else that's tasteless or offensive. In general though, the deceased do have rights. You won't likely see a photo of a dead person posted publicly for this reason for any circumstance, even natural death.

    Answer by hellokittykat at 4:12 AM on May. 27, 2013

  • folks have the choice of NOT looking at those pictures.

    When the constitution was written I don't think they had the internet in mind, nor do I think they had the wide variety of guns in mind. I agree with the above poster. These pictures would be manipulated and the gun fanatics would have a field day saying it was on a pistol that killed these children. Let these families be. What they wrote many years ago really does not apply to today's world.

    Answer by Anonymous at 8:33 AM on May. 27, 2013

  • . But the fact remains, what our forefathers fought and died for is in serious jeopardy.

    ^^ I am sure they would have wrote it much differently knowing how today's world would be.

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:04 AM on May. 27, 2013

  • Slippery slope. I have no interest in seeing them, but I do not think they should be sealed.

    Answer by QuinnMae at 9:15 AM on May. 27, 2013

  • Geez, remember back to Columbine? Back then there was still some respect left in the world....

    Answer by m-avi at 11:18 AM on May. 27, 2013

  • Freedom of speech and freedom of the press

    Answer by Dardenella at 12:12 PM on May. 27, 2013

  • My opinion on this is that whichever way it goes, it will be abused. What I find ironic is how many people were outraged when Obama allowed journalists access to the caskets returning from war - something that used to be allowed, then was banned, and then reinstated by his administration. In general, it seems people are hypocritical about it, regardless of which side they take.

    Modern photography and investigation were born on the backs of people who made a living not by following around overweight Kardashians, but by photographing crime scenes. The morning paper was more graphic than a Tarantino movie. Our insistence with oversheltering ourselves and our children from reality are what create these "problems", not the existence or release of any photos documenting them.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:43 PM on May. 27, 2013

  • what about the families rights to privacy? what about the families rights to not having their dying children's last words & faces plastered all over the internet? i understand the slippery slope argument (tho it being all Obama's fault is laughable) and i understand not looking if you dont want to see them (i wont look), but what about the victim's rights? what is really to be gained from graphic images and recordings given to the media?

    they wouldnt be sealed from everyone...just those who have bad or no real intentions. the families of the victims could give permission to someone who wants to use them for real work like prevention or training. the bill should be stated as a majority of victim families tho, not every single one b/c im sure there are some families who would never give permission.

    Answer by okmanders at 2:23 PM on May. 27, 2013

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.