I found this story, and the proposed legislation, interesting.  I happen to be a strong believer in the right to privacy - yet the public's right to know can sometimes take necessary precedence.  Where is the line?  When does necessity cross over into the realm of sensationalism?

If I call 911, I am not considering the possible ramifications of having my voice and my words broadcast across the airwaves.  After all, I'm no one special.  But if the operator on the other end of the line doesn't do their job and ends up being investigated - should that make my frantic phone call public?  Suppose I think my life is in danger ... I call to report my fears.  Suppose I witness another's life being threatened and call to get them help.  Anonomously.  If the media picks it up as a "hot story", should the transcript/recording of my call be released?  My permission would not be required.

I wonder.  If I considered all the possible scenarios, would I hesitate to call?  Would the person who might save my life by dialing 911 hesitate? 

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/15/ban-911-calls-from-tv/

I have a very simple - some might say simplistic - question.  Apparently there are photos of further torture techniques out there that may be eventually released.  At some time, in some way.  Horrific, vile photographs. 

A camera was used ... there was a photographer thinking about centering the shot, getting the light just right, clicking the shutter (not to be confused with shudder) at just the right moment. 

Who was it?  Who were they?  Perhaps more importantly, why was the photographer needed at all?  A moment in time is captured (no pun intended) for a reason.  We've all done it.  Happy Birthday.  Surprise!  Merry Christmas.  You're so cute.  Wow, look at that!

We've all laughed at a picture of someone else and said, "This will come back to haunt you one day!", never meaning any harm.

But they did.  With every squinted eye they did. Why?