Legislator Wants To Ban People From Posting Pictures Of Accidents To Social Media... For At Least One Hour
from the dumb-idea-with-implausible-logistics dept
Kentucky legislator John "Bam" Carney thinks social media might be getting a bit out of hand. His response? Prior Restraint: The Legislation. (via Slashdot)
A bill assigned to the House Judiciary Committee would prohibit anyone who witnesses “an event that could reasonably result in a serious physical injury” from publishing information about that event on the Internet for at least an hour if their posting could identify potential victims.See how many problems you can find in that two-sentence summary.
Violators could be fined $20 to $100 per incident. Exceptions are made for the news media, victims of the event and emergency responders at the event.
Would posting video of a football game to Facebook violate this law? ("An event that could reasonably result in a serious physical injury.") How about a traffic stop? (Risk for physical injury again, obviously.) For that matter, is the law only violated IF a "serious physical injury" occurs or just when it could be the potential end result? Example: an automobile accident looks horrendous but everyone involved suffers only cuts and bruises. Does this fall on the right side of Carney's proposal?
And that's before you get to the costs involved in tracking down a person who posted the illicit footage to hit them up for $20-100. If nothing else, a guaranteed money-loser like this should be tossed on P&L merits alone.
The "one hour" blackout also poses a problem. Who determines when the countdown starts? Those issuing the tickets? The EMS crew (if any)? The victims (if any)? An official clock located at Carney's office?
On top of that, there's the always sticky question about who is or isn't "media," as well as the attendant First Amendment issue that even "Bam" recognizes is a problem (but that somehow hasn't prevented him from offering up the bill in the first place).
Of course, Carney has his reasons for crafting (a very generous depiction of the effort involved) this bill. Apparently, this isn't a stupid piece of legislation. It's actually an icebreaker.
“It’s purely my intent to get a discussion going out there, asking people to be more respectful about what they put on social media,” Carney said.That's a hell of a way to have a "discussion:" tell someone to shut up and take money out of their wallet if they don't.
The second half of his statement explains the copious amounts of "do something" dripping off his single-sheet proposal.
“We’ve had some incidents, including one in my community, and I’d hate for anyone to learn about the loss of a loved one through social media.”Something happened to a neighbor or, more likely, a powerful constituent, who gave Carney an earful about today's social media being nothing more than 24-hour tabloid TV staffed by youthful miscreants waving around iThings. Pure speculation, but I'd be surprised if it's not in the same neighborhood as the truth.
Something happened.
People said something should be done.
"Bam" Carney will do something.
And here it is: SOMETHING.
(1) Any individual who witnesses an event that could reasonably result in a serious physical injury as defined in KRS 500.080 shall not post any information identifying the potential victims on the Internet or other electronic media until at least one (1) hour has passed from the moment the event was first witnessed.BE IT ENACTED THAT I'M GOING TO TEACH THE PUBLIC SOME MANNERS, DAMMIT.
(2) This section shall not apply to: (a) The injured individual; (b) Any member of the news media; or (c) Any emergency responder responding to the event.
(3) Any individual who violates this section shall be fined not less than twenty dollars ($20) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100) for each offense.
And, finally, one last voice offering clueless support of a bad bill -- this one belonging to another government employee: Tiger Robinson, Pulaski County Public Safety Director.
“There have been times we’ve been pulling bodies out of cars and these people are standing there, snapping pictures on their phones to post on Facebook. It’s just not right.”Maybe so. But attempting to herd people towards a subjective level of decency can rarely be accomplished without trampling on a few civil liberties. Carney's trying to nudge the public towards his and Robinson's public decorum ideal, and if a little prior restraint is what's needed to achieve this goal, a little prior restraint is what the public will get.
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: bam carney, free speech, john carney, kentucky, posting pictures, prior restraint, social media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sociable Media
You mean it isn't?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Legislative Football
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who sets the fine?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Like all those skateboard videos?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.wave3.com/story/26351725/exclusive-campbellsville-man-opens-up-about-moments-before -als-bucket-challenge-accident
Seems to be the most likely candidate.
Of course there was followup to it...
http://www.wave3.com/story/27860479/campbellsville-fire-dept-fined-25200-over-deadly-als-ice-bu cket-challenge-accident
Perhaps if images weren't posted so quickly they could have come up with a better story and avoid fines.
This is political pandering at its finest. This law will never survive, but I put time into that instead of doing anything that might improve life for my constituents. I will get 1000's of likes because everyone likes the idea of not showing horror to the world until the proper people are notified first, so what if this managed to pass and they'd end up paying the bill for the legal fight over it...
It would be nice if there was more time spend on the job making things better than trying to grab the next cool soundbite and stay in the media churn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
emergency responders
I guess the next words from Tiger Robinson were something like "Posting the pictures to facebook is our job" ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prior restraint
But is it really a prior restraint?
I am afraid that “prior restraint”, for me, is kinda one of those “I know it when I see it” things. Generally, I have some go-to cases that illustrate prior restraints, and I compare the situation with them to see to how it stacks up.
So, Alexander v United States (1993) is, I believe, noteworthy as a fairly recent and relatively lucid explanation of the doctrine. Alexander also cites to a number of cases, many of which are fairly noteworthy themselves. But let me skip over them, to go back to Near v Minnesota (1931), where Chief Justice Hughes quoted Blackstone: Blackstone, an Englishman, held a conservative view of the liberty of the press, and in America, we have both today and historically held broader views of that liberty. But what was Blackstone referring to?
An Act for Preventing the Frequent Abuses in Printing Seditious Treasonable and Unlicensed Books and Pamphlets and for Regulating Printing and Printing Presses 14 Car.II, c.33 (1662)
That 1662 statute is a prior restraint.
So how does the statute under consideration stack up against the 1662 prior restraint? Does the proposed statute really amount to a state censorship regime?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The media exemption is especially insane
The media is required already to not report the names of people killed until the family members have been notified.
Yet this law exempts them from it, the people you're most likely to hear such news from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Disingenuous disapproval
Assume that "Bam" Carney has been a legislator for a little while. Say, 6 years. A posteriori, he might know that this proposal is blocked by legal precedent so well established that it has made it into popular culture. Therefore, the conclusion to draw is that the icebreaker isn't a fine or threat of a fine. Nor is it an enacted law. It is the proposed law, that has less chance of being enacted than Obama has of a third term as president.
And hey, it worked. You're talking about it. Ice: broken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The media exemption is especially insane
There is no such legal requirement in the United States. There may be a common practice of the media in this regard, but that's hardly the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
single-sheet proposal
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Prior restraint
Is sending an email to my spouse about the accident considered publishing? What if I CC the email to ten people in my address book? A hundred? What about a Facebook-like service: does it make a difference if I post the info under 'public' versus 'friends only'? Gets a bit weird...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No intelligence required.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The media exemption is especially insane
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Prior restraint
That said, the internet didn't exist in 1662. For the purposes of this proposed law, the 1662 version would be restraining people from walking around town yelling that there'd been an accident. That seems like it definitely would be prior restraint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No intelligence required.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: single-sheet proposal
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The point is, you don't know what can happen, so a law like this is useless without prescience. And if Carney had an prescience, he wouldn't have propose the law because he'd know it was useless to do so, even to start a conversation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Prior restraint
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, it's not actually unconstitutional to *propose* an unconstitutional bill and not pass it... but I still don't think crafting such a bill is appropriate. Hold a press conference if you want. Tweet your outrage. Pass a resolution declaring that you don't like it. But don't start a process that could result in an unconstitutional law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yet another problem...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patience
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The law is self-defeating
Anyone close enough to record the event must also be witnesses. And witnesses too, are victims, because they still experienced the trauma of seeing what happened.
So really, anyone can post whatever they like... The only thing is could possibly restrict is reposting. Which is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The media exemption is especially insane
The media shield bill comes to mind when those in charge decide what makes a person a member of the media.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
P&L?
Criminal fines are not supposed to be a profit center, they're supposed to deter crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: P&L?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Contributing
One could read this as the news media wanting an hour's worth of 'breaking news' lead...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: emergency responders
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's political grandstanding at it's finest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
New Law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm not supporting the law, it's a complete idiocy. But it seems to me you can't rely on people common sense. It seems to be severely scarce nowadays.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pedantically... death isn't a 'serious injury'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Evidence Destruction Delay
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What is media? [was Re: ]
Lovell v City of Griffin (1938)
Compare that with the licensing act of 1662: And this 1662 requirement for entry in the Register of the Company of Stationers may be traced back to 1586, “The newe Decrees of the Starre Chamber for Orders in Printinge”.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]