Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]What is applingly lacking is a willingness for people on both sides of this issue to understand: 1) There is no right to privacy in the Consittution 2) The press needs to act with taste and restrict such coverage to one TV and one still camera and pool the images. The pubic has a legitimate desire to share in the grief of the family. If the individual family objects to coverage of the private funeral, that's fine. But if there is a military honor guard, they are forgetting that respectful coverage can play a role in honoring their loved one. Normally, most things can be done so both sides are satisfied. They need to talk ahead of time and honor both side's wishes. (The military that is.) In my professional experience, there are plenty of families that are willing to let the press be there as long as they don't get in people's faces. It's Bush that has denied the press and the families their right to choose. For political reasons. On Nov 16, 2003, at 4:25 PM, Marc James Small wrote: > Sorry, BD. You are attemptng to demand access into a family's most > personal moments, and your aggressiveness might speak well for your > initiative but it shows an appalling lack of knowledge of the right to > privacy and to the simple decorum demanded of all citizens in this > Great > Republic. Eric Welch Carlsbad, CA http://www.jphotog.com Never miss a good chance to shut up. - Will Rogers. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html