I don’t know if news sources outside of Georgia are talking about this, I might have heard a snippet on the Today show this morning, but I can’t remember. Just in case, I want to alert you all to something absolutely atrocious. Probably, there are a lot of Hustler subscribers reading this blog right now.
Last year, innocent, 24 year-old Meredith Emerson was killed while jogging or hiking or something. And she was decapitated and a lot of horrible other things. In some of the crime scene photos, 
Meredith’s body is naked and posed “suggestively” (whatever). So, Hustler has decided that they want these nude photos. And because they are public record (crime scene photos) they thought they could just ask and receive. Well, Georgia is all like, hell no, bitches. You can’t have these photos. And Hustler is planning to sue the Georgia Bureau of Investigation on infringement of first amendment rights. ‘sigh’
Not that I have ever looked at Hustler as a serious publication, but I thought they had a little class. I will admit, I have never seen a copy of Hustler but I thought that they were just into sex photos and stuff. I never imagined that this magazine (or any magazine really) would want to display a nude, dead body as a sexual image. I mean, she is someone’s little girl. Meredith Emerson is a person for God’s sake.
Right now there is a lot of legislation and lawyers and stuff around this horrible request. Jill Chambers, a Georgia House Rep, is introducing legislation (which is very careful about not infringing on first amendment rights) to keep Hustler away from these photos. If this has made you mad like it has me, please send Chambers an encouraging message or something. Whatever. I just hate the thought of a magazine sexualizing Meredith’s death. You can contact Chambers here.
More and better written information here, here and here.
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 10, 2010 at 10:09 am
ifbyyes
What? That’s so disgusting and seriously messed up.
March 10, 2010 at 10:23 am
Windsor Grace
I know! I can’t believe that a human being is trying to do something so despicable to his fellow (wo)man.
March 10, 2010 at 9:44 pm
ifbyyes
Or their readers!
March 10, 2010 at 12:12 pm
donna
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It is disgusting that a magazine would want these photos.
March 10, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Nilsa @ SoMi Speaks
What strikes me here is this … the photos may be public, but they are owned by someone. Not Hustler. Whether it’s the photographer or the state or whatever, those photos are owned by someone other than Hustler. And unless Hustler gets permission to reprint them, you’d think they shouldn’t be able to include them in their magazine at all.
March 10, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Windsor Grace
You would think. But, because the state owns them, they are public record. And there by, under the first amendment, Hustler has the “right” to have access.
March 10, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Jvstice
They couldn’t possibly be wanting to do an article on a murdered model could they? Seems you’re all jumping to the conclusion that just because it is Hustler they want to portray the photos as sexual….seems like an awful big assumption there. After all there are articles with words in the mag as well as girlie photos. There just might (however small) be an opportunity there for actual journalism.
I once worked at Kinko’s when a woman came in with a bunch of pro-life things to copy…nobody else would do the job. I mentioned it to the woman when she picked them up, they were props for a pro-choice movie. Just goes to say never assume…….
March 10, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Windsor Grace
They said they want the photos because they are sexual in nature. Why else would a sex mag want naked photos that reputable publications wouldn’t?
Sent from my iPhone
March 13, 2010 at 2:12 am
Jvstice
and just because they wanted the ‘sexual in nature’ photos ABSOLUTELY means they won’t do an article about them ?!?!
March 12, 2010 at 8:59 am
Wolfscratch
Jvstice, excellent comment.
The Crime Scene Photos Focus is a Blue Herring.
Meredith Hope Emerson should have been rescued..
Representatives Ralston and Chambers are creating a diversion to deflect from the truth..
Seems to be working. The overwhelming responce is outrage.
Google search: Emerson – Hilton: 3, 260, 000 Links
Wolfscratch: Glenn Adams
March 13, 2010 at 10:11 am
Windsor Grace
I agree with the both of you about this possibly being a publicity stunt and she should have been rescued. The truth is, she wasn’t and even if this is a publicity stunt, Hustler’s actions are deplorable. Blue Herring or not, it’s disgusting.
March 12, 2010 at 9:33 am
mamatulip
HOLY SHIT.
That is wrong on so many levels. I don’t even know where to BEGIN.