The First Amendment to the Constitution states quite clearly:


Yesterday FEMA made an official statement concerning the press - source:


It appears based on several reports from the area that this order is not only being followed as official policy but it is being taken further.

The National Press Photographers Association brings us a story about several different reporters who have been harrassed by police and had equipment confiscated for taking photographs of not only dead bodies but firefights and conditions in the area (more inside + photos).


There is also this story from reuters:


Some may think that martial law has been declared in New Orleans possibly giving police the right to do this, but it hasn't been declared.

Questions for debate:
1. Are the actions described in these stories a violation of the constitutional rights of a free press? Why or why not?

2. Should reporters be able to cover any story they desire provided they don't interfere with rescue operations? Why or why not?

Are the actions described in these stories a violation of the constitutional rights of a free press? Why or why not?

Absolutely. As CJ says, the First Amendment couldn't be any clearer: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom... of the press." I know of no state or local laws that would supercede this amendment. The fact that the military as well as the police is involved in some of these incidents means that such action is not only unconstitutional, but it also violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which, with equal clarity, "Prohibits search, seizure, or arrest powers to US military personnel" and makes it unlawful to use the military "for the purpose of executing the laws."


Should reporters be able to cover any story they desire provided they don't interfere with rescue operations? Why or why not?

Provided they don't interfere with rescue operations (or compromise national security), absolutely. Regarding the photographing of bodies, I'm sure we'll be hearing arguments about "respect for the dead" and "protecting the families of the victims", but, even if that were a concern, it is not the job of the US military or cops to enforce such respect or to protect families from memory cards or rolls of film. But I'm convinced that that's not the concern at all. As was the case with Dover Air Force Base and Abu Ghraib, this is all about image control. It is about suppression of information. I suspect this will be escalating in response to yesterday's Oprah Winfrey Show and the footage of bodies broadcast. That coverage was in no way sensational - faces were blurred, no disrespect was shown - but it did convey, in a very visceral way, the sheer horror of what was allowed to happen. And, given the reports of police gunning down innocent citizens, I don't suppose that footage of American soldiers or cops killing other Americans would play very well on the evening news, either.

Reuters reported the other day that LeRoy Fouchea, one of the Superdome survivors, offered to show reporters the dead bodies of a man in a wheelchair, a young man who he had dragged inside himself, and the bodies of two infants:
However, a National Guardsman denied them entry:
Reporters Without Borders has a report that adds to the Oleniuk story CJ cited above:
This is not about showing repect for victims, survivors, families, or anyone else. It is about showing disrespect for the American people - and disregard for the Constitution and the law of the land.

The fact that martial law has not been declared doesn't mean we're not living in a police state. It's just that this police state doesn't even have the trappings of borderline legality.

1. First things first. The statement by FEMA was a request, not an order. From the article, "We have requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media". Sounds reasonable to me, since such photos might violate the privacy of the victims. No legal enforcement of request by the government= no violation of the first amendment. Reporters can (or should be able to) snap away pictures of bodies floating around New Orleans.

The actions described in those stories, on the other hand, ARE troubling indications of police brutality. I'd have to have more information to form a basis for a conclusion, such as context. It is reasonable to protect a morgue from the prying cameras of photographers. The press isn't free to go invade others privacy at will, but the police shouldn't be free to confiscate their cameras and physically beat them for simply taking pictures either.

2. Yes, but I don't think they should be free to invade the personal privacy of the victims to cover their stories. In other words, if policemen are standing guard at a building which houses bodies and are limiting access to them (which was the case in one of the stories), out of respect for the dead, reporters should not be free to go in and take pictures.

1. Are the actions described in these stories a violation of the constitutional rights of a free press? Why or why not?

Mrs P is right, the initial post describes this an order. When it is indeed a statement of request. Big difference. Though instances are going to happen when an on scene commander from any various agency, or underlings acting as with more power than is vested in them, commit a violation of a reporter's civil rights, it's a stretch to indict anyone for this as being an actual policy of law.

Though Wertz is correct in his interpretation to the Posse Comitatus Act, it was amended in 1981, with the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Officials Act. It in part states:


Link


2. Should reporters be able to cover any story they desire provided they don't interfere with rescue operations? Why or why not?

I'll leave out the nefarious conspiracies, and say that within reason, yes they should. The exceptions would obviously have to be, if there's no room in the rescue boat or aircraft, reporters don't get to go. They can always find room in Sean Penn's boat.
But covering stories doesn't include unrestricted access to any facility they wish....like a morgue.

I should, perhaps, add that I don't personally feel that any of the coverage of the disaster should be exploitative or sensational - nor do I condone the violation of privacy or footage that would identify corpses before family members have been informed. However, as much as I may disagree with journalists that might take or publish such photos or footage, it is not illegal (unless something like trespassing is involved).


I am aware of the amendment, but do not see how the seizure of cameras or film equipment prevents the loss of life or the wanton destruction of property (indeed, some of these incidents involve the wanton destruction of property by law enforcement officers). Nor do I see what prevents the duly constituted local authorities from being able to violate the First Amendment on their own. Surely, our military has more important things on which to focus at the moment.

I stated it as exactly what it was, a statement. However it was certainly an official statement from FEMA. I have also cited numerous instances where it is being carried out as an order not only for dead bodies but for other things such as firefights and general conditions. If troops are threatening reporters then that certainly seems to suggest that some sort of order is in place even if I didn't cite it in the opening post. If this were to have happened a handful of times it might be "underlings acting with more power than is vested in them" but based on observations it looks like it might be a little more than that.


They were trying to get into the Convention Center DTOM, not an official morgue. If the Convention Center is becoming a morgue don't you think that might be news? The same convention center I might add that FEMA was completely unaware of until a few days ago.

That also happens to just be one instance, there are at least 5 or 6 others cited in those articles and those are just the reported cases that I know about. This is not just about dead bodies, it is a general pattern emerging.

1. Are the actions described in these stories a violation of the constitutional rights of a free press? Why or why not?

I do indeed believe the rights of the press are being violated, it falls short of a law restricting them. At the very least it is government suppression of the press.

2. Should reporters be able to cover any story they desire provided they don't interfere with rescue operations? Why or why not?

I am divided on where the rights of the press should be curbed. I feel their right to report is a very important right an worth defending, but how far they are allowed to go in search of a story is another matter. They should never be allowed to adversely effect rescue operations and i doubt they fall within this category. A healthy respect for the privacy of the victims and their families is of great importance but they should be allowed to report all else short of becoming sensationalist journalism.

The situations described fall neither within the realm of sensationalism nor disrespect on the part of the reporters. It seems a good deal of disrespect for both victims and the rule of law has occurred however on part of the government.

1. Are the actions described in these stories a violation of the constitutional rights of a free press? Why or why not?

I am with Mrs. Pigpen on this. Assuming the accounts are true, there are serious issues of police brutality, as well as the violations of a host of individual rights involved here. I would like to see more evidence and/or a conformation of these stories. Assuming they exist, then at least in some of these cases, their are authorities that need to be held accountable.

2. Should reporters be able to cover any story they desire provided they don't interfere with rescue operations? Why or why not?

That depends on if you believe in an individual right to privacy (which reasonable people can disagree about). But, lets see what the The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) Code of Ethics has to say on this. Interestingly, there seems to a conflict.





Personally, I cannot a recall a time, in my adult life, when the American Press felt it was necessary to air or print pictures of bodies, rather then simply report the count of those lost (a number that in this case is likely to be staggering enough).

I realize that these pictures have shock value, and thus the possibility to stir the citizens to action. This could help get the public opinion behind the idea of an investigation of the handling of this disaster to seek ways to avoid the mistakes made in the future, as well as hold those responsible accountable.

However, considering the recent Gallup poll number which show that 42% of Americans think President Bush did a bad or terrible job in regards to New Orleans, I think it is pretty likely that the majority of Americans already seek such an investigation.

So, is publicly displaying the dead, without regard for their or their family and friends feelings reasonable?

"Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see."

If the public is already behind the idea of an investigation and holding the authorities responsible accountable then is there an "overriding need to see"? I personally do not think so, at least, in regard to respecting the dead, as well as their families and friends (though reasonable minds can disagree).

Obviously the Press should be restricted if their presence will interfere with Rescue Operation or endanger others. In this day and age of so many suing so many others over the result of their own personal choices, I think it is plausible that some authorities might consider restricting access to limit liability (though that doesn't seem to be the case here, at least I have not heard of this happening). Otherwise, the reporters should have access, we are a nation with a free press after all, the the purpose of the free press is to protect the citizens from tyranny.

But should we violate a person's most private moments, in doing this? I tend to agree with the NPPA code of ethics on this one "Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see". Otherwise I think "respect for the dead" and "protecting the families of the victims" should take precedence, as it always has.



As a former member of the Hazlet Township, N.J. Light and Heavy Rescue Squad, I can tell you that this was ALWAYS a concern on the scene. It was from 1992-1994 when I road #66, and I have no reason to believe that this concern has changed.

However, I find it curious that some of those who have argued so eloquently in support of the existence of, and the protection of the individual rights of privacy in regards to the actions of corporate America, the patriot act, etc, don't seem to see the individual privacy issues in this instance.

Ah, not an official morgue. That surely must make all the difference than. Is part of the convention center being utilized as a morgue or isn't it? Would you then restrict photographers from entering an official morgue at will to snap pictures?
Photographers are free to take pictures as bodies come in or out as far as I can tell. Is it really a 1st Amendment violation to not allow them into the freezer for those up close and personal shots? Nobody is denying them a news story, the dead certainly aren't going to give any interviews.......

There's likely not a single person breathing right now, who is not aware of the probably terrible death toll, is there any good reason to allow them into a morgue???


I agree with you, but I don't think it is outside the bounds of military and federal LEO's to restrict reporters and photographers from either designated sensitive or unsafe areas, or to keep them from hindering any rescue operation.

This is completely inaccurate OS, first of all it happens in almost every war or major international disaster we have had in the last century. If you'd like I can find you pictures of Iraq, the Tsunami and as far back as you'd like to go. I'm sure I could even go back and find stuff from Vietnam.

Secondly, when those pictures are shown many news agencies choose to obscure the faces of the victims to preserve privacy.

The very essence of photojournalism is taking pictures that allow you to live through pictures the conditions and emotions of the situation. This is a topic I happen to know just a little bit about.


You are making an assumption I don't think you can make - that the public is yet overwhelmingly behind any sort of investigation. Many in America probably still don't understand the gravity of the situation in New Orleans nor do they realize the level to which their government failed them in a time of need. This is why it is important for the press to report on the situation.

If the government had its way we'd all be blind, deaf and dumb about this whole affair and they'd be handling it quietly while sweeping things under the rug. Thankfully we have a free press.

But the larger issue is that the government does not get to decide what the public is overwhelmingly in favor of or not in favor of and cut off information that isn't needed. It is the responsibility of the press to report on current events and if viewers don't like what they see they have a number of ways to express that with the most simple being to stop watching that news station hurting their revenues.


This is an editing task in this case that should occur before the picture is printed or aired. There is no filter in a film or digital camera that will obscure faces OS. You are misinterpreting the ethical guidelines.

You don't sit around and think about whether it is ethical to take a picture or you'd never take any pictures. You take pictures as the notion strikes you and then you edit them later by either editing the picture directly or choosing which ones to give to the news bureau for a story. There are usually numerous people involved in this process with the bare minimum being the photographer and the photo editor.


You are calling the Convention Center a morgue, it isn't DTOM. It is the convention center. If so many people are dying there that it is becoming a morgue (read: due to lack of food and water provided by relief agencies) then that is a story and the press is within their first amendment rights to report on it.

Edited to add: Here is an additional account by NBC News Anchor Brian Williams:

1. Are the actions described in these stories a violation of the constitutional rights of a free press? Why or why not?Yes they are but I address it at a different angle, I believe that a dead person photo should be censored like we do the f word, I.E. the word can be there as a symbol just as the body, the body photos should not be allowed in any public forum that could identify that person. They can digitally remove private parts and the face and still get the point across. As CJ eludes is done.
2. Should reporters be able to cover any story they desire provided they don't interfere with rescue operations? Why or why not? Where does freedom begin to end, with the end of free press or a corporate owned press..

Cube Jockey wrote:


CJ, I don't think anyone in America that has cable television or the internet does not understand the gravity of the situation in New Orleans. For the past 10 days all I have heard on every major station (and website) is the devastation, tragedy etc of Katrina. I think your partisanship is driving your view that the press ought to go so far as to publish pictures of dead bodies floating through the city and anywhere else they happen to be.

I am with Mrs. P, Dontreadonme and OS on this issue. There has been no legal restriction on taking pics of the bodies, simply a request. Moreover, the right to privacy of these people and their families should be respected.

I really don't see what "partisanship" has to do with anything Hayleyanne. In every debate we have had here I have consistently been a strong defender of constitutional rights and most especially the first amendment. If it is "partisan" to be a defender of the first amendment then I guess I am.

Everyone seems to be focusing on the whole "dead bodies" part of that and that is just one part of it. I have already (and could probably find more) cited several examples of reporters being prevented from reporting on other things going on there such as rescues, firefights, general conditions etc. That is right there in the opening topic yet everyone chooses to focus on the dead bodies argument. What you aren't seeing by doing that is that this is a bigger issue.

None of us wants the press to be shut down, but partisanship is everywhere on this issue. MoveOn.org is now going to run a PR effort à la Cindy Sheehan, with hurricane victims demanding to meet President Bush. The NY Times is holding space on their front page tommorow for what MoveOn promises are Excellent Visuals -- Signs reading "Shame" and "Help Hurricane Victims" - you know they would love some bloated dead body photos to go with that if they could. As for the obsession on dead bodies, there are thousands of people who can't find their relatives, while reporters are demanding to see and photograph a stack of dead bodies. Of course it's news, but why would we let them take those photos?

There is lots of good information getting out of NO, and yes, there has been a lot of chaos. We'll hear all kinds of stories before this is over, but my #1 priority isn't worrying about Agence France Presse or whomever getting into a makeshift morgue. With the internet, these photos would be everywhere instantly and that's not right.

Right or not, tasteful or not (I sound like Basil Rathbone), the fact is that the military, nor the government should dictate the morality, or taste of news reporting. So far the most compelling reason you've offered for what constitutes police brutality is "well those photographers should take pictures elsewhere." As I understand it, the first amendment isn't qualified by "so long as it is respectful."

OK, this is an interesting argument for why the press should not publish the photographs, but how does this explain how the Military and the US Government is within their bounds for removing their right to do so?

This is an absurd breach of first admendment rights. This is not a partisan issue, this is an issue of allowing real journalism to actually be done in this country for once.

For the first time in what I can remember, this is the first time that the press has actually acted like journalists. They're on the ground getting the information for themselves, and not letting press conferences dictate what's on the news slate for the day. The Mainstream Media deserves to be appluaded for their efforts, and these attempts to shut down the free press need to immediately put to a stop, it's the American way , whether you like it or not.

1. Are the actions described in these stories a violation of the constitutional rights of a free press? Why or why not?

I'm not sure of the Constitutional angle...

Louisiana doesn't have martial law, per se, but they have something that is essentially the equivalent. I have read various accounts that "martial law" was declared in New Orleans, not in Louisiana (which was rebutted by the governor's office). If something akin to martial law has been declared, then the Constitutional issue becomes murky.

That issue is frankly irrelevant to me. What is relevant is whether or not government officials, be they the military, the police or anyone else is confiscating or damaging people's property or assaulting people. That is unacceptable.

I am all for not allowing people into certain areas due to the risks involved. The press certainly does not have a free pass to enter dangerous territory. However, assaulting individuals or taking their stuff over what might be in the camera simply crosses the line.

Of course, we have had several wild accusations made and retracted in regards to this whole New Orleans situation and so we have to take things with a grain of salt.

2. Should reporters be able to cover any story they desire provided they don't interfere with rescue operations? Why or why not?

Absolutely not. The press does have limits. They should not be able to photograph those who don't agree to it (I believe there are laws governing this for children). They should not have access to areas that are dangerous if others are excluded. The word "press" does not give them license to do whatever they want. The Constitution protects political speech and freedom to disagree, it is not an all-access pass for those who are the "press".

The government should request that the press not show dead bodies. We should maintain some level of decency. However, that request should not be made into a demand.

That is the case for general photography if a profit is involved. If you are taking stock photography pictures which you intend to sell then people, and especially children, have to sign model releases for it to be legal. Photojournalism has no such restrictions. You do not have to have permission to take pictures of something if you are a journalist, including children. The only thing you are supposed to do is ask for the names of the people you photograph so you can properly credit them in the pictures when they are printed.

I just wanted to comment on your signature about the local authorities in Louisiana complaining about the funding and the budget cuts and your signature's statement that Louisiana has been given more money than any other state in the union since Bush took office. You need to realize that first of all, Louisiana is the backbone of our society. The reason that this country faired so well economically was because of it's river system and geographical location and makeup. River transports are the most efficient and least expensive and the Mississippi river and the port of New Orleans is very essential in that economic preservation. It is the fifth biggest port in the world and the mouth of the Mississippi river is the only river in this country that allows big barges in and out (two boats to pass each other ) Without that river and the port in New Orleans it would cut our transportation of goods in and out of the country by half and that is not to mention that we receive many of our oil shipments there since it is the only port big enough for some of the barges used in shipping. So any money given to Louissianna was to benefit the entire country.

It also needs to be noted that the city is completely non -existent now. Although they have gotten their pipelines working again - without people to work at the docks and run the show there is no usage for this port - without schools for their kids to go to and houses for people to live in - there is no one to work the docks and the tasks remain undone. This is a financial devastation for our entire country.

The people of Louissianna do not benefit and in fact are the most oppressed people in the country which is why the blacks and the poorest people live in New Orleans - not because they are in any way shape or form the recipient of the money the state gets...There are tons of oil spills and tons of funds that go into the levee system there but the levee system there needed much help and they were in the middle of trying to reconstruct the wetlands that surrounded the area and that which are necessary to lessen the hurricane damages that are prone to the area. Bush came into office and cut the funding over 44 percent - which left them putting the levee repair on the shelf and then he proceeded to cut the funding for FEMA 80 percent. That is not to mention that he fired the top three officials in charge of FEMA and replaced them with three of his buddies. Note all of which have absolutely NO EXPERIENCE in disaster relief or the coordination efforts needed to qualify for a job like that - hell or even for a volunteer job at the red cross. It should also be noted that these people and that organization are what the american people depend on if disaster should hit them. Bush has basically put ineptitude to please his buddies in exchange for our safety and our lives. This is not good. What happened to all the money spent on homeland security? We have none and new Orleans is the perfect example of what our government can and is prepared to do for any of us if we were to survive a disaster...basically nothing and a little too late and a little too short to make the relief effort actually a relief. 3rd world countries respond better.

Note also that the entire administration with the exception of one or two individuals are tied heavily if not invested in the oil companies and they will ensure those pipelines and docks are working for their own personal agendas and to support their own bank accounts - meanwhile New Orleans puts the poorest people at the lowest part of the city while the richest who are in charge of the direction the water flows at the top which is why the french quarter is dry and so many of the poorest and the blacks are displaced...they have the worst education system in the country and they are also the home of 25 percent of the nation's mentally ill - that is why the crime rate is so High in the area - that is what happens when people get oppressed and can not break free of the oppression. they work for nothing and they get everything taken from them - while the rich and the whites keep their houses and try to rebuild the new orleans area the way they want it to be - whites, for the most part don't live in new orleans because of the high population of blacks and the drugs and the crime - blacks have no choice because as always they bear the brunt of this nations heart ache and crap. I guess I will never know the extent of their suffering because I am not black but it surely sucks for me just looking at it, I can not imagine how it must be for them and I can't express enough the grace and dignity that they continue to show throughout this blatant abuse that they have suffered.

sorry for being so off topic but I think you should know this since you have a signature like that - it is spreading wrong and misleading information every post you make. We have enough of that around.