Supreme Court favors Peter Turnley

I agree it's a good decision for the 1st amendment. Although, I think the pic itself offers no real news value. I wouldn't have published it out of respect for the family.
 
1200 people turn out to show respect for a fallen soldier and support for his family. The funeral was open casket by the family's wish. That has news value in most communities - and continues to be news for the entire country and world.

The fact that the article highlights grieving families on both sides of the US/Iraq conflict is a fine attempt at humanizing the conflict. No disrespect - just eye opening for those who deny the humanity of their adversary.

Bully for Harper's and Turnley.

Gregg
 
I have thousands of images like that from the Patriot Guard Missions that I've done and will continue to do. I don't think the image should have been published, not because of respect to the family but for respect of "The Fallen Hero." Just because 1200 or so people may have seen that scene in the church, doesn't mean that the general public needs to see it.

Peter's a real pro and Harper's is a good publication...but the fact is that by now or shortly in the future, they won't remember the soldier's name. The family on the other hand will never get over loosing their "SON."

Maybe it's just me but that's how I feel. In fact, I have over 1100 images from Viet-Nam in the Library of Congress. I made them as a grunt in Nam....when I returned home, I made prints and decided that no-one should ever see the images...so I put them in The Library.....

I could make a lot of money if I ever wanted to publish a book...but it's more about humanity and being a Human Being than money or anything else. Peter's a Human Being but that image being published.....kinda makes me feel that maybe he's loosing grasp on it.......

later don
 
I'm thinking that perhaps the only reason that this is controversial at all, is because ....

... well, perhaps it would be best not to bring up politics.
 
I suspect a lot of people are going to disagree with me, but, when it comes to war coverage, I don't see enough horrible images in the major news publications. Almost everybody who covers wars has been told, "We can't publish that; it's too horrible."

War is too horrible. If the pictures offend you, good. It might give you a little more appreciation of what some young kids are going through for you.

Bill
 
I think James Nachtwey says it eloquently: "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." White-washing the coverage to make it more palatable does the public a disservice - sometimes the conscience needs to be shocked.
 
The current middle east confict has had one of the great snow jobs of all time done on it. This photo moved me and reminded me pecisely what the real cost of war is ... not dollars but human lives!
 
If you want to see the real aftermath currently in our country....about our KIDS.....log onto patriotguard.org look in your region and go to a mission (funeral)..stand there and maybe even join the flag line.....

hopefully there won't be any protesters holding signs like "Thank G-D your son is dead"....

and then when it's over (for you)...thank the LORD that it wasn't your brother or daughter or son, or father or........
 
Living in Oklahoma, I'm a little surprised the decision was upheld. I think that being tasteful and respectful is important, but also that you don't have a free press if you can't publish images that represent cold hard truth, and seeing dead bodies during war is part of that. As to the photo itself, I thought it looked weird having the casket off to the side with the audience looking forward. It was almost like they were hiding the thing, or pulling it out of a closet. And being so far away (as opposed to a close-up) it didn't seem offensive to me at all. But I understand those who feel differently about it.
 
Frank: I can understand that decision. Not having been in the military, much less combat, I can't say I feel the same way, but something so powerful and personal as those photos could hold too much power to be given to the strangers.

There is a difference between personal photo records and reportage/journalism. Both are important, and with all due respect to you, m4streetshooter, I don't believe one should dictate appropriateness of the other.
 
sooner said:
Living in Oklahoma, I'm a little surprised the decision was upheld. I think that being tasteful and respectful is important, but also that you don't have a free press if you can't publish images that represent cold hard truth, and seeing dead bodies during war is part of that. As to the photo itself, I thought it looked weird having the casket off to the side with the audience looking forward. It was almost like they were hiding the thing, or pulling it out of a closet. And being so far away (as opposed to a close-up) it didn't seem offensive to me at all. But I understand those who feel differently about it.
Click to expand...

see, there's the problem...you nailed it on the head...

you stated

"It was almost like they were hiding the thing, or pulling it out of a closet. And being so far away (as opposed to a close-up) it didn't seem offensive to me at all."

THING.....it's a person's SON not a thing......as a thing...it's not offensive...as a Human Being...it damn sure is..... as long as soldiers are things...there will always be wars...

and that also answers Franks question about why I made images for no one to see......because they are images of people not things......
horrible images of the carnage people do to other people......

this is a really hot subject and maybe we should continue in a moderated forum....I've debated this many times and it always stirs up many passions....
 
I agree war is a horrible thing. I am against the war and a staunch Democrat. But that pic itself will do nothing to change the minds of those in agreeance with the war. It's true the event was newsworthy for that community, but it could've been better illustrated. It is not difficult to move the emotions of people by exhibiting some sad or horrific event. Bearing witness to terrible event is itself a cross to bear and there is no reason to inflict that kind of pain on the undeserving. Bloody scenes are shown on television every night. In terms of "whitewashing", this scene itself is not remarkable. It is just sad.
 
When I said "thing" I was referring to the casket, which is a thing. Of course you are right, the person in the casket is not a thing. My point isn't to try and take sides in whether photographs like this are ever appropriate, but rather to say that this particular photograph makes the casket seem small and almost put aside to me, and who knows maybe that was the photographer's intent, to symbolize the way in which most people hear about casualties the way they listen to news of someone else's weather. The effect is certainly different than, say, a closeup in which the soldier's face fills the frame.
 
I am glad that we are discussing this here. But I find it interesting that there is rarely discussion (not necessarily here) of appropriateness, taste, or consent if a similar picture were taken in Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor, etc. and printed in a U.S. publication.
 
M4streetshooter said:
I could make a lot of money if I ever wanted to publish a book...later don
Click to expand...

In today's marketplace, NO ONE makes a lot of money publishing phtography books. Well, maybe a few of the publishers...never the photographers...

Beyond that, I'm really curious what purpose you feel having the photos in the LOC accomplishes if access is so restricted - or, for that matter, why they accepted them with such conditions attached. I'm just trying to understand, I'm not being sarcastic...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top