So Freedom of Speech is only acceptable when you approve of the speech?

Most police agencies including state police only require a junior college degree to be eligible to join the police force. Where in the private sector can you get a responsible job with a two-year degree, nowhere. Even Wal-Mart Burger King and McDonald’s have higher requirements for their management personnel.

United States now has the lowest educational system in the industrial world. Only 27% of Americans have a college degree. Americans over the age of 65 have a higher percentage of holding a college degree than those under the age of 30. No wonder companies are moving to Mexico in reporting that they find a high level of education.

Police need to stop recruiting from the military.

Further, the officer had no way of knowing what the photographer was actually shooting. It’s not difficult to shoot this sort of thing in a way that avoids identifying victims and gruesome images. Most editors/producers wouldn’t run those images anyway, so there’s no sense in shooting them.

I am proud to be counted among the many staunch supporters of Americas constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. It does my heart good to see such compassionate outpouring over even the slightest threat, perceived or real. Let’s not ever lose that compassion.

I condemn this police officers actions, however, I do not condemn her show of emotion. She apparently shares my concern over an obvious lack of compassion creeping into the media. I believe this lack of concern is fired by sensationalism.

Is it really necessary to record the aftermath of a fatal automobile accident? A photojournalist is quick to say yes and backs that answer with a lot of valid reasons. I have been shown that it is possible to use that video as a research tool to help society. But I don’t think this was the reporters intent in this case.

Could the tragedy of that scene be conveyed by the use of words without videotape? I say yes.

I am told that editors are compassionate enough to not allow this type of footage to be released to the public. But can we be assured this will not change in these very difficult financial times?

Newspapers are folding from lack of readership. A very jaded general public needs more and more sensationalism to grab their attention. And holding their attention for any longer than the length of a sound bite is becoming even more of a challenge. How long before publishers begin forcing editors to use bloody traffic accident photos to sell their papers? Or to use the video of the bloodied aftermath to sell ads on the internet?

There once was a time when that reporter would have been publicly shamed for having the bad taste to video a bloody traffic scene. Doing so dishonors the dignity of the human victim. I’ve been told that this kind of thinking is ‘subjective’. Apparently, there is no longer any room for the concern of a persons dignity when it comes to ‘news’ gathering.

Likewise, it seems human emotion and compassion from a police officer is a luxury’ we as a ‘freedom’ loving nation will no longer tolerate.

No, I think that you SHOULD express your opinion here even if you disagree with most everyone else. It is the free open debate that helps us learn other perspectives and hopefully come to some common ground. So, opine away!

I think that the officer had every right to talk to the photographer and express her opinions that he was disrespecting the family by photographing. But, when she used her government authority to stop him she went too far.

It appears that almost everyone who commented is very emotionally slanted against cops. I feel very fortunate that I live in a country that offers the freedom of press and the freedom of speech, but clearly it is sometimes best to just keep my opinion to myself.

Thanks again to all of you.

Perhaps this incident is not news to you because it does not impact you. But to others, it is no doubt news. What if your child had to walk along that road every day to school? To that mother it would be news. What if your spouse had previously been in an accident at that intersection and there was a pending claim against another driver? Certainly they would consider this news. What if there had been many previous fatalities at this location before? Certainly news and a public health issue as well. The news story might get the highway department to make safety changes. Perhaps the photographs would give the story more impact thus spurring changes.

So, you like the officer, are making personal value judgements on the newsworthiness/appropriateness of the story. You are judging it from your personal perspective subject to your experiences, background, proximity and biases. The founders of this country codified our rights to avoid this problem. No one person or group should control information or speech, and ESPECIALLY NOT THE GOVERNMENT! Just because someone doesn’t like some speech doesn’t mean it should be stopped. I don’t agree with, and am offended by, some types of speech such as racism. But, they are entitled to their opinions even if I am repulsed by them.

This is a textbook case of prior restraint and the supreme court has upheld that this is almost never allowable and the government bears a very high burden to show the reason that it should be allowed.

The officer, while perhaps naively, thinking she was protecting the victim’s family, ended up trampling all over the First Amendment by imposing her values and using her government authority to do so. She also broke the laws that she is sworn to uphold by committing assault and battery, false imprisonment, and destruction of property against the photographer. She had no reasonable suspicion that the photographer had committed a crime or was going to, and thus had no lawful reason to detain him.

Hopefully the police department will use this unfortunate situation to teach the officers that they are to enforce the law, and not to make moral judgements about otherwise legal behavior.