I saw an article in the Northern Kentucky newspaper today about a municipal court prosecutor who has a 4,000-strong weekly newsletter following. Apparently the mug shots are the most popular feature. Reminds me of how people used to be put in stocks -- I bet the newsletter itself is a crime deterrent, in some roundabout way.
Do you think any of these convicted criminals could rightfully sue Rob Sanders as having violated their privacy by publishing their mugshots? Metafilter says public domain laws for mugshots vary according to jurisdiction. My guess is, if your mugshot got published and you didn't want it to be, you're just SOL.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Addendum: On the other hand, seeing all those ugly people in the mug shots may convince beautiful people to take up crime and get away with it; if that happened, the newsletter would be a crime.... encourager? What's the opposite of "deterrent"?
Does the following reasoning represent a failure of modus tollens, an application of it, or both?
If beautiful people get convicted of crimes in Kenton County, then their mug shots will be here.
Their mug shots are not here.
Therefore, beautiful people do not get convicted of crimes in Kenton County.
Post a Comment