Smut Peddlers Are Still Press, Despite Their "Vile" Requests

Why does a porn magazine want crime scene photos of a female hiker who was beaten to death and decapitated?

This is a classic battle of freedom of information and speech pitted against basic decency and respect for the dead.

By making such a ludicrous request is Hustler helping to chip away at our first amendment rights?

The nudie mag is pleading a right to public records and freedom of the press, but many find the idea repugnant. Georgian politicians are even considering a Meredith Emerson Act to prevent future crime scene photos from being available to the public this way.

Of course that has no bearing on whether the publication will be granted access to the records.

On February 25 Fred Rosen, the crime reporter for Hustler, requested the photos of Meredith Emerson as part of an open records request. The magazine indicated that it intends to use them as part of a news story about crime. He said he needs the photos “to get the best obtainable version of the truth,” and that the decisions about whether to publish the photos in Hustler will be left to the editor.

A spokesman from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) said the request would be denied and that this matches the intent of the Georgia Open Records Act, calling it “indecent.”

“This is just an affront to the victim’s family,” John Bankhead said.

“It’s incredible that anybody would ask for something like this.”

The speaker of the house has requested the GBI not provide the magazine with the pictures.

“It’s sickening. I think it’s disgusting. I think it is vile and I think it is very, very hurtful to this family,” said David Ralston, the Republican speaker.

But the big issue here is that Hustler‘s actions have spurred on legislation-hungry politicians.

State Rep. Jill Chambers wants to introduce legislation exempting crime-scene photos like Emerson’s, including those that depict nude bodies, from Georgia’s public-disclosure laws.

“Meredith has no way to give permission to have her body exposed and lusted after by people who derive pleasure from this,” Chambers said.

No doubt the magazine is getting off on all the publicity surrounding the request, which is why they won’t explain the reason for their request in more detail. Chances are such a major magazine with sinking revenues would not risk alienating readers (or is it self-pleasurers?) by publishing the photos.

Despite the connection between sex and violence in porn, most men would be sicked by pictures of a beaten murder victim without a head. The people who would derive pleasure from such images likely do not read Hustler, known for fairly mainstream pics of naked women.

My beef with the magazine is that they are putting their own publicity before the first amendment rights that they hold so dear. The new law restricting access to such photos would act as an effective barrier to discovering the truth about many sexual crimes and it should not be passed. There is a reason that the public has a right to access information like this and it should be protected.

By making such an “incredible” request, and by refusing to explain why they are doing it, Hustler is forcing these legislators to choose between the first amendment and popularity, and we all know which politicians will choose.

Hustler should have access to the photos and we must rely on public opinion to keep their use of those photos in check. But to deny this information to a publication just because they publish smut is discriminatory.

For a nation based on ideals, I expected America to be a little better than that.