Judge Rules That Press Can Use Perp Walk Photos; Freedom Of The Press Lives

from the phew dept

Thu, Jun 11th 2009 3:29am — Mike Masnick

Last month, we were troubled by the fact that a judge in NY was even considering barring local newspapers from using photos of a politician handcuffed in their news coverage about him. The judge was afraid it could bias a jury, but the newspapers pointed to that whole "freedom of the press" bit. Vince writes in to let us know that the judge has in fact allowed the press to use the photos, correctly noting that the First Amendment issue seems to outweigh the others. Still, it remains troubling that the question even lingered as long as it did, and that the judge needed to justify the decision with such precise details (including the idea that it was okay because NY is a large metro area, and because the time difference between the photos and the trial). It seems like it should be pretty straightforward that a court shouldn't be able to get involved in the editorial decisions of a newspaper, so long as what the newspaper is printing is truthful.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: first amendment, freedom of the press, perp walk, photos

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2009 @ 4:35am

Part of that question is the "forced" perp walk, where police and prosecutors work it out to make sure that when a high profile person is arrested, that the media is on hand to get the shot.

It is creating the appearance of guilt, where none may exist. Intentional use of perp walks is a pretty nasty thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2009 @ 5:15am

You say that like the media wouldn't of heard about the arrest warrant and taken the pictures anyways...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew, 11 Jun 2009 @ 5:17am

Re:
The "perp walk" just means you've been arrested.

It's safe to assume that the jury would already know that the person there has been arrested...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
inc, 11 Jun 2009 @ 5:23am

Well if he's innocent until proven guilty then what's the problem? Isn't this the same logic the politicians use to strip you of your privacy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2009 @ 5:52am

Re:
Ya, yer right ... cause you never see pics of perps who aren't "somebody" being led to their cell
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2009 @ 5:55am

Blind Justice ?
Seems that the judge is not too concerned about the perp walk of nobodies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vasco DaGameboy, 11 Jun 2009 @ 6:28am

This is only tangentially connected to technology. It's more directly related to the favorite topic here - the rights of the individual particularly as they apply to free media downloads. Techdirt has become primarily a sounding board for screeds against those who claim for whatever reason a hearing for their property rights, and it's starting to sound like a bunch of Jr. High Schoolers who don't want to pay for their Korn MP3s. I agree that the RIAA has gone el loco, but please give me a justification for this story on TechDirt, other than that it buttresses the arguments for the poster's favorite cause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2009 @ 6:57am

Re:
no u
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2009 @ 6:58am

Re:
It's here because Mike will link to this story a couple of months from now with terms like "judges side with the media" or "courts support free speech", attempting to bootstrap enough one of his platform planks into being.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Phoenix, 11 Jun 2009 @ 7:09am

Easy solution - select jurors from the list of people who aren't ready for DTV yet. These people are so clueless that the chance they will be up to speed on current events is close to nil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bri (profile), 11 Jun 2009 @ 7:23am

Does bring up a larger issue
Should the media be able to publish photos of alleged criminals? I would say that mugshots should not be released to the media until someone has been proven guilty. This is especially salient in issues of underage pornography busts where the associated stigma could literally ruin someone's life. Don't get me wrong, the guilty ones are the scum of the earth, but in the court of public opinion just having your picture up there is enough to convict you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh, 11 Jun 2009 @ 7:55am

Re:
From the About link at the top of THIS page:

"Started in 1997 by Floor64 founder Mike Masnick and then growing into a group blogging effort, the Techdirt blog uses a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow."

Please read the last sentence of the paragraph.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben, 11 Jun 2009 @ 8:11am

You know..
You've just been arrested, you're having a really crappy day, the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing doesn't seem to apply to you, and you have mobs of assholes with cameras getting in your face and screaming dumbass questions at you.

You know, it kinda makes wonder if after you've been found innocent you could sue both the media outlets and the reporters (make sure they're homeless, destitute and blackballed from ever working in the media again) so that nobody else will ever have to walk the gauntlet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 11 Jun 2009 @ 8:54am

Re:
Yeah, but sometimes, like when someone's getting frog-marched out and then folded up into a squad car. Yeah, then it might make sense to prevent your jury from seeing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 11 Jun 2009 @ 8:55am

Re: Blind Justice ?
The perp walk of nobodies seldom makes the news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 11 Jun 2009 @ 8:57am

Re: You know..
Nah, it doesn't make me wonder that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 11 Jun 2009 @ 8:58am

Re: You know..
So "presumed innocent until proven guilty" should mean "stifle 1st amendment rights until proven guilty"? I mean I know it would suck, but isn't there such a thing as a false arrest lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 11 Jun 2009 @ 9:17am

Re:
This is only tangentially connected to technology.

It's about first amendment rights -- which we talk about on quite a regular basis.

Techdirt has become primarily a sounding board for screeds against those who claim for whatever reason a hearing for their property rights,

Huh? We're 100% in favor of property rights. I'm not sure why you're suggesting otherwise. What we disagree with are those who try to extend property rights beyond the purpose of property.

but please give me a justification for this story on TechDirt, other than that it buttresses the arguments for the poster's favorite cause.

Again it is a 1st amendment issue -- which is a topic we have written about extensively since the beginning of the site.

We write about what we find interesting. Many of our readers find these posts interesting as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2009 @ 12:30pm

Re: Re: You know..
I know it would suck, but isn't there such a thing as a false arrest lawsuit?

You think so? Well, you opened your mouth with it, so go ahead now and explain how that works.

Waiting...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2009 @ 12:33pm

Re: Does bring up a larger issue
"Should the media be able to publish photos of alleged criminals?"

In the case of hot chicks, I think they should publish photos of body cavity searches too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Idaho Potato Commisioner, 11 Jun 2009 @ 12:52pm

Re:
and the whole "being arrested" thing would not have the same impact? Remember jurors are the people that were to dumb to get out of jury duty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
debunker, 11 Jun 2009 @ 12:54pm

Re: Re: You know..
"I know it would suck, but isn't there such a thing as a false arrest lawsuit?"

In the United States, police officers and other government officials are shielded from false arrest lawsuits through a process known as "qualified immunity".

Try again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2009 @ 6:00pm

Re: Re: Blind Justice ?
really ?
do you watch the news ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeNYC, 12 Jun 2009 @ 10:56am

Rights of the Press
I'm tired of the same old premise that First Amendment rights are unconditional. They're not (remember the "you can't yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater" example?).

While I agree that the judge ruled appropriately, the author's indignation that the issue was ever entertained is misplaced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeNYC, 12 Jun 2009 @ 11:02am

Perp Walks
Remember that perp walks are "staged", they're timed for the cameras. Would ANY photo be ok? What is a guy is charged with armed robbery and was forced to hold a gun for the cameras??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2009 @ 4:02pm

Re: Rights of the Press
I'm tired of the same old premise that First Amendment rights are unconditional. They're not (remember the "you can't yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater" example?).

And I'm tired of people falsely claiming that "you can't yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
[ link to this | view in thread ]