Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

California Family Fights For Privacy, Relief From Cyber-Harassment

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the little-to-no-recourse dept.

Privacy 544

theodp writes "Just days after his daughter Nikki's death in a devastating car crash, real-estate agent Christos Catsouras clicked open an e-mail that appeared to be a property listing. Onto his screen popped his daughter's bloodied face, captioned with the words 'Woohoo Daddy! Hey daddy, I'm still alive.' Now he and his wife are attempting to stop strangers from displaying the grisly images of their daughter — an effort that has transformed Nikki's death into a case about privacy, cyber-harassment and image control. The images of Nikki, including one of her nearly-decapitated head drooping out the shattered car window, were taken as a routine part of a fatal accident response and went viral after being leaked by two CHP dispatchers. 'Putting these photos on the Internet,' says the family's attorney, 'was akin to placing them in every mailbox in the world.'"

cancel ×

544 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You Can't Fight the Internet (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27720981)

To the Catsouras family, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.

The family filed a formal complaint about the photos' release, and three months later, they received a letter of apology from the California Highway Patrol. An investigation had revealed that the images, taken as a routine part of a fatal accident response, had been leaked by two CHP dispatchers: Thomas O'Donnell, 39, and Aaron Reich, 30. O'Donnell, a 19-year CHP veteran, had been suspended for 25 days without pay. Reich quit soon after -- for unrelated reasons, says his lawyer. Both men declined requests for comment, but Jon Schlueter, Reich's attorney, says his client sent the images to relatives and friends to warn them of the dangers of the road. "It was a cautionary tale," Schlueter says. "Any young person that sees these photos and is goaded into driving more cautiously or less recklessly -- that's a public service."

If that does not satisfy you, I'm not sure what will. Sue your police department for large sums of money but it won't take the pictures off the internet.

Today the entire family is in therapy, and they've taken out a second mortgage to cover the costs of their legal battle.

Your life up until this accident has sounded fairly idyllic and easy. Apparently this has been a very rude wake up call. Your daughter took your hundred thousand dollar car for a 100mph tirade through town with cocaine in her system. We all do stupid things, some more stupid than others. She made a series of very serious mistakes and luckily no one else was killed or badly hurt.

If you do not put this behind you, it will consume you and your lives and her mistakes will end up ruining not just her life but yours. Mourn her, celebrate her life, remember her but in the end move on.

In my opinion, it would be more heroic of you not to spend a second mortgage suing your police department but instead using that money to create awareness of hazardous driving, starting a college fund in her name, donating that money to charity in her name or doing something less destructive with it in her name. Right now, the public's memory of your daughter is for the wrong reasons and you're just exacerbating the situation. Be above that. Change things for the better and remember her fondly, not as a never ending court case.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721011)

...but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.

That is correct, sir, and here are the pics you were looking for [bestgore.com] .

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (-1, Troll)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721121)

It is posts like this that make censorship look like a good idea.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (5, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721177)

The trouble is random assholes exploit the same things that political dissidents require for their freedom.

It's also why spammers prosper so well, because they abuse people's need for email.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (4, Insightful)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721319)

Wish I had a mod point - well said!

These same freedoms are the ones terrorists exploit for their causes.

These outrages cannot be legislated away in a free society but will still be used for political gain and propaganda by our so called representatives.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (5, Insightful)

The Mgt (221650) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721241)

It is posts like this that make censorship look like a good idea.

Why? You know where the link goes. If you don't want to see it then obviously you don't follow the link.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (4, Interesting)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721483)

You can question whether or not other people have the right to see images like that. Personally, I consider pictures of someones death and/or mutilated body are more personal/private than ones genitals.

The images of Nikki, including one of her nearly-decapitated head drooping out the shattered car window, were taken as a routine part of a fatal accident response and went viral after being leaked by two CHP dispatchers.

So what is the penalty of leaking images like this? I take it they will lose their jobs and face a civil lawsuit from the parents, but will they be fined or face jail-time?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (4, Insightful)

donny77 (891484) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721537)

I believe it has been standard practice that images taken in a public place are the property of the photographer. They didn't break into a morgue and take the photos. These were taken on a public highway. They are very graphic, but I feel they could serve a great purpose as awareness to teenagers about how they drive. In that context, does the good of these images outweigh the family's "right to privacy" on a public road? I understand the pain these images could cause, but they should be able to avoid seeing them. The people e-mailing these photos to them should get prosecuted though.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (5, Insightful)

Bysshe (1330263) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721267)

I tend to agree with the poster. Its posts like yours that make me thankful for freedom of speech.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721379)

Hitler, is that you?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (5, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721451)

It is posts like this that make censorship look like a good idea.

No, it's not.

What this whole situation shows is that "intellectual property" is still a good idea, if legislators hadn't completely distorted it. The pictures exploit the public image of Nikki Catsouras, they should be the property of her family. Aside from use in police investigations, the CHP has no right in delivering those photographs to anyone.

I think the two investigators who leaked those photos should be permanently removed from any police work, they have shown they do not have the moral preparation for such work.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (5, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721471)

> It is posts like this that make censorship look like a good idea.

Respectfully, I don't agree. The photos show a truth: a truth about what happens when we speed at 100mph on cocaine and fly off the road. They show a truth about how incredibly fragile we are. That we are mortal.

I don't need reality sanitised for me by censorship. I don't need or want polite euphemisms covering up the gory realities of life. The only thing that censorship can result in is ignorance, and ignorance leads to an inaccurate view of reality (delusion) which leads to bad decisions.

Unless you work in emergency services or the army, it's unlikely that you'll ever see such a brutal example of our own fragility and mortality. Why should we be shielded from the truth about our own nature? How can this lead to anything good?

When I saw the head of a tiny Iraqi child, cracked open like a bloody egg by 'coalition' bombs I didn't wish that some asshole hadn't posted that to the internet, I wished that some assholes with bombs hadn't killed the child. I saw the ugly reality of war in a way that I couldn't have unless I'd been there.

It's important to know the truth, and an ugly truth is ALWAYS more beautiful than a pleasing lie.

I'll qualify that by saying that the (real) asshole in this story - the person who sent the image to the family (not the people who took the images in the first place) did them no favours at all and deserve to be prosecuted and punished (in the UK, I imagine it would be an easy case of 'causing alarm or distress'). What they did was an act of singular cruelty, and what I have said should not be misconstrued as a defence of them or their actions.

  For the rest of us, there's no good reason not to know that travelling at high speeds whith out proper control of our vehicle will result in such a thing - and to see it. Reading a few words describing the gore does not leave the same impression. If anything, I think it would do all teenage drivers a favour to know exactly what can happen to them, their freinds and their families if they don't exercise proper control of their vehicle.

Surely a good reason to oppose censorship.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721539)

Beautifully stated. Where's my mod points when I need them?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721231)

Is-is she okay?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721387)

Is-is she okay?

You really are a FUCKTARD.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721503)

Yet you felt the need to comment upon my comment.
You are a gigantic faggot.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (4, Insightful)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721309)

Don't know what this should be modded, but I think "insightful" would be pretty a pretty close match. If all the blame truly lies on whoever originally leaked the photos, then posting that link above (assuming it actually contains photos of the incident in question) would be perfectly all right. I don't think many people would take a view quite that extreme. The family receiving this abuse is well justified in feeling wronged by their harrassers. Whether anything can be done about it is a different matter, but just because you're protected by law or practicality doesn't make being an asshat OK.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (5, Insightful)

karnal (22275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721051)

I have to add to this; I admittedly searched for her name after reading the article and the top google search is someone who registered her name.net. I'm not going to link; I'm sure others are going to have the same idea as I did to get an idea of the repulsiveness of the photos.

What a horrible horrible set of pictures. I've seen other death photos on the 'net (haven't we all) but this hits their family with what I would think an unbearable amount of sorrow and anger. No one should see their child that way....

I feel very sorrowful for the loss of the life there, whether it was a reckless act on her part or not. However, it is purely a dick move to send an e-mail as stated in the summary. Don't think you can sue someone for being a dick, unfortunately.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721235)

However, it is purely a dick move to send an e-mail as stated in the summary. Don't think you can sue someone for being a dick, unfortunately.

Well, you can sue anyone for anything but you won't necessarily win. In this particular case, you'd have a good chance of winning a civil case against the sender of the email and you might even win a criminal case - harassment is illegal. On the other hand, you probably wouldn't win against people who were merely discussing your daughter's death - even if the discussion involved photos.

Stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, not every family would be opposed to a public discussion of their daughter/sister's death - some families might even feel that there were important lesson's to be learned and wish to share those lessons in order to spare others the same fate.

So, why is this particular family opposed to a public discussion? First, that original email may have set them down a path of feeling persecuted. If, instead, some reputable organization had approached them about stepping up and becoming community leaders helping others avoid the same fate, then the outcome might be different. Second, there is a lot of anger toward people who made money in the real estate bubble. Much of the criticism of the daughter may actually reflect anger about the real estate bubble. Finally, it may be that this family (or at least the parents) believe that the purpose of life is to be superficially successful (expensive house, sit-down dinner, etc.). In this sense, their anger may be more a reflection of their own values than anything else.

In the final analysis, their anger is probably due to a combination of factors. The one thing can control, though, is themselves. The best path to inner peace may be for them to reassess their own values and world view.

Parent implies link to virus! (5, Informative)

cheftw (996831) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721239)

-MILDLY IMPORTANT-
If you do go to that website be warned, it does contain the images mentioned but also a video. THIS VIDEO IS A VIRUS. It didn't run very well in WINE but some people have less secure nonfree operating systems.

tl;dr
If you go to her name dot net the video is a virus.

Re:Parent implies link to virus! (1)

Carlosos (1342945) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721455)

Who on slashdot would open an .exe file after clicking on the supposed video that should start in the browser?

By the way, the person that made the website was creative with that virus (or maybe adware?). I'm sure a lot of naive people would open that (but those don't exist on slashdot, right?)

Re:Parent implies link to virus! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721465)

some people have less secure nonfree operating systems

Talk about being a dick on the Internet...

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721431)

...Don't think you can sue someone for being a dick, unfortunately...

no, but if that father found and killed the sicko who sent that email, put me on the jury. I'll send him home.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721435)

Yea that's what happens when you crash... suck it up... That site has an .exe to install. Surely malware.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721055)

Bullshit. I guess you don't understand additional emotional distress. Let me dig up your dead mom or dad, take some pix and email them to you every holiday, birthday, etc. and say "Mom sends her best ;)"

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721077)

Have fun, they're dead. They don't give a shit, nor do I.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721443)

Have fun, they're dead. They don't give a shit, nor do I.

I'm sorry for anyone who has to come into contact with you.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721425)

Hey Retard-

This wasn't a photo from a graveyard. It was a grizzly scene in broad daylight on a road that sees tens of thousands of cars every day... myself included. The "victim" was not an innocent bystander to the events- She caused them.

There are too many kids with $100,000+ cars in this end of the OC... 2 minutes from Coto de Caza (Real Housewives). I'm with the cop. If one kid thought to slow down after seeing those pictures, it was worth it. I'm betting the poster above does not live in an area where it's not uncommon to see a 17 year old in dad's Lamborghinni. The poor kids have to make do with a Benz...

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (4, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721065)

In my opinion, it would be more heroic of you not to spend a second mortgage suing your police department but instead using that money to create awareness of hazardous driving, starting a college fund in her name, donating that money to charity in her name or doing something less destructive with it in her name. Right now, the public's memory of your daughter is for the wrong reasons and you're just exacerbating the situation. Be above that. Change things for the better and remember her fondly, not as a never ending court case.

That.

The only thing that will give some sense to the death of their daughter is if it deters other young men and women from doing the same mistake.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (4, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721521)

The only thing that will give some sense to the death of their daughter is if it deters other young men and women from doing the same mistake.

The problem is that it won't.

These shock campaigns do *zero* to prevent young people from repeating the mistakes. Most youth believe they are invincible, and act accordingly. Showing them stuff like this just makes them say "oh, gross" as they repeat the mistakes, believing that it will never happen to them.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721579)

It'd be easier to sue the police department make some mad $$$ and use all the mad $$$ to do the same thing.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (4, Insightful)

gavron (1300111) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721071)

"Think of it as evolution in action" -- Niven and Pournelle

It was a spoilt cocained out of control girl trading hard on the privileges her "loving parents" gave her without regard to common sense, and when she ran out of them and ended up a splattered mess, they are now blaming the world.

Yup, use your money for good. Suing other people because you're disgusting excuses for horrible parents who let their coked-out daughter continue her life "Oh yeah we were going to take her to a beverly hills therapist on monday" and have access to a $90K sportscar -- well guess what. You failed as parents. You failed as human beings.

If you want to know whom to blame, mommy and daddy, go take your wads of orange county cash and stand in front of a mirror. If that looks greek to you, well, that's because responsibility and raising kids go hand in hand, and you didn't get it and still don't get it.

E

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721111)

If you do not put this behind you, it will consume you and your lives and her mistakes will end up ruining not just her life but yours. Mourn her, celebrate her life, remember her but in the end move on.

Which is difficult if someone sends you shocking photos of your dying daughter...

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (3, Insightful)

hhallahh (1378697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721171)

It's a shame because this is essentially a good post, but the bitter undertone of "your daughter may have died, but you're still living a comfortable upper-class lifestyle" is pretty disgusting (and according to the article, not uncommon.) The family's score is with the OCPD *and* with the nebulous force of internet users (or, to avoid lumping them all together, some specific users.) The main point, though, is that there's only hope for a satisfactory legal resolution with the former group

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (5, Insightful)

DMCBOSTON (714393) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721201)

Bullshit, period. The CHP workers were just plain wrong to release the photos unless they go through their public information office. Ya, once out they are in the wild, but they shouldn't BE in the wild. The boss has control, the pics are CHP property. Suing the CHP will probably be worthwhile to the family ($$$, hey I pass no judgment on that) but it will Definitely tighten up any loose cannons at the CHP. The workers that did this should be held strictly accountable for any pain and suffering by the family through their negligence and the CHP must be made to enforce that on the rest of them. Oh, BTW I am in that line of work and it would never occur to me to pull such a stupid stunt. DMC

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721203)

Cyber-Harassment is the problem, not censorship.

If someone robs a bank, the answer isn't just to put bigger locks on the bank. The answer is to catch and stop bank robbers.

If someone kills someone with a knife, then the answer isn't to just block knifes with bullet proof vests. The answer is to catch and stop people who kill other people.

Censorship avoids facing the real issue. Its the extremely twisted behaviours that censorship is asked for, that are the real problem. Shutting out and hiding away isn't the answer. They need to caught so others will not suffer.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (2, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721243)

To the Catsouras family, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet but with the Orange County Police Department.

How so? The problem is not the pictures being out there its sick fucks from anonymous and 4chan emailing them to the family with captions. The police snafu, helps increase awareness that taking cocaine then driving can lead to horrible consequences, but anonymous harassing the family of a dead girl just offends.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (1, Redundant)

ultranova (717540) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721393)

How so? The problem is not the pictures being out there its sick fucks from anonymous and 4chan emailing them to the family with captions.

No, the problem is the pictures shouldn't be out there in the first place. The Internet is such a large place that it has plenty of sick fucks who'll do this kind of shit; the police should know this and act accordingly.

The police snafu, helps increase awareness that taking cocaine then driving can lead to horrible consequences, but anonymous harassing the family of a dead girl just offends.

Everyone is already perfectly aware of the consequences, it's simply that some people refuse to acknowledge that it might happen to them. I've never quite understood why; I have no problem understanding that if I have trouble walking then driving might not be such a good idea, but apparently some people do.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (5, Interesting)

mjeffers (61490) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721463)

This is not either/or. The cops did wrong, should be fired and subject to punishment for any laws they may have broken as well as civil lawsuits. The 4chan kiddies (or more likely, their mommies and daddies) should also be subject to civil suits. Just because the internet exists, doesn't give you the right to be a sick fuck. It also doesn't make being a sick fuck consequence free.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (4, Insightful)

Saxerman (253676) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721293)

They did sue the police department:

In March 2008, it was dismissed by a superior-court judge, who ruled that while the dispatchers' conduct was "utterly reprehensible," it hadn't violated the law. "No duty exists between the surviving family and defendant," the opinion reads, because privacy rights don't extend to the dead. "It's an unfortunate situation, and our heart goes out to the family," says R. Rex Parris, the attorney representing O'Donnell. "But this is America, and there's a freedom of information."

There is still an appeal pending, but really, what would you want to see happen? As we blaze forward into the future it's going to becoming increasingly likely that some technology will capture some event most of us would rather not remember. Yet trying to lock up ownership of the past would be even worse than the ridiculous problems copyright laws are causing here in the digital age. You've already acknowledged that once the images have escaped it's basically impossible to put them back in the bottle. Trying to target the original source of their escape seems just as quixotic to me as going after any of the subsequent copies. Certainly, from a legal standpoint it might be easier to discourage and prosecute the source of a 'leak', but towards what end? A sanitized world in which we can all happily only view those events we all agree should be remembered?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721389)

So the cops have no duty to keep the images private, but every random person on the Internet does?

No, wait, the article admits they have no legal basis to do so, yet they are sending C&Ds anyway. Screw them and especially screw their attorneys, who are knowingly sending baseless C&Ds.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721583)

Baseless or not, C&Ds are an effective tool to scare people into removing information. I've received one myself, and promptly told the lawyer and the client he represented to go fuck themselves. My reaction let them know I wasn't going down without a fight, but a fight wasn't going to be worth it to them in the long run.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721351)

Legal options are not the only options. Legally, once the information is public, the public can probably do what they want with it (not including harassment). That does NOT mean that our only recourse is judicial. The described behavior is unacceptable, and as a society, we should express our outrage at it. Not through the courts, but socially.

This means that if someone you know forwards you an email with this picture, let them know that their actions are unacceptable and threaten your relationship with them due to its absolute callousness and offensiveness. If someone shows it to you in the office, let HR know about their completely unprofessional behavior. If you learn of web sites with this picture, rather than visit them and provide them with advertising revenue, page hits, and general validation, ignore or block the web site. If you know of news sites that publish the picture, avoid or boycott them.

We have power beyond just the law to curb intolerable behavior in our society. We can exclude people who do things that are legal but still wrong from the social groups that we all depend on. Don't let the parent poster fool you into thinking you are powerless.

There are probably people that think this is as hilarious as tubgirl or goatse. Remind them that there are people in this world that care about human suffering. That there is a difference between what someone intentionally does to or for themselves and the terrible result of an accident, however caused. Remind people of suffering, and teach them to respect it, not enjoy it.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (2, Insightful)

bagofbeans (567926) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721359)

Two cents:
1c. OCPD response seems surprisingly disinterested and callous
2c. If the pics had been taken by a 3rd party, such as press photog, then the anger could hardley be focussed on the release, 'cos that's what photographers do

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (2, Insightful)

ojintoad (1310811) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721363)

I entirely disagree with your opinion. I think it is very heroic for them to sue the police department and hold accountable the two buffoons that created a more distressing situation for them. It gives me hope that I myself will not have to deal with a situation in the future because police departments will adopt policies to more strictly protect evidence and prevent these exposures from happening.

[do] something less destructive with it in her name.

You don't think holding inept police department officials accountable is constructive? I think the tone of the article shows they realized fighting the internet is a losing battle and have given up. While those on Slashdot might know it's a losing battle, a family in a tragic situation unfamiliar with the internet might not be so wise. And who can blame them? Acting on emotions is human. But the article leaves things with this thought:

"In a perfect world, I would push a button and delete every one of the images," says Lesli. In the real world, she finds some comfort in working to change the laws, so that photos of some future family's dead child might stay locked away, leaving only smiling, lively images to remember.

Thank you Catsouras family.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721413)

I would suggest being very careful with making statements such of this. I will not speculate on what has occurred to you in your life because that would be very rude and hypocritical to the reason why I choose to write this post, but those of us (myself is included in this category) who have not "walked a mile" in this families shoes have no right to comment. Until you open your inbox, after losing a loved one, and find a picture of her decapitated head in your email, I would refrain from passing any sort of judgment on these people and they choices that they have made. Frankly, I would be insulted if I received a letter from the CHP three weeks later telling me that they were "Sorry".

If that was my child? My child is not some public service announcement for the CHP nor will I accept that callous response from the lawyer. It's disgusting.

Defeatist attitude to punishing criminals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721421)

You Can't Fight the Internet by eldavojohn (898314)
To the Catsouras family, I am deeply sorry for your loss, but your score to settle is not with the nebulous force of users that are the internet

Firstly, it is beyond discussion that the actions described ("Hello daddy, I am still alive") are serious harassment.

Secondly, it is beyond discussion that in every other area of life, serious harassment is a criminal act that leads to punishment. Although Slashdotters like to imagine themselves living in the world of 'Complete Freedom Of Speech Except Of Course Yelling Fire In A Crowded Theatre', someone who went up to the house of these parents and put printed copies of the image with the caption "Hello daddy, I am still alive" through their letterbox would beyond any doubt be prosecuted. It may not rank on top of the priority list, but if it happens repeatedly, checking the photos for fingerprints, and installing a security camera, would be minimum. And if those responsible were caught, they would be punished.

It is surprising and even shocking that just because communication is now done electronically, "you just can't fight" online harassment, and the "score is not to settle with the nebulous force of users that is the internet". Both of these arguments could be made in a discussion about REAL-LIFE harassment ('the score is not to settle with the nebulous mass of people that is the American populace'), and have failed. Because obviously, they weren't good enough to make real-life harassment legal.

Hence, why the defeatist attitude to punishing an act that is illegal and extremely frowned upon in every other situation but on the internet?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (4, Insightful)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721433)

What a tasteless post. The issues at hand here are:
  • agents of law distribute photos from an accident scene. Given that they are agents of law, the minor answer should be: fire them. The reasons why they did that do not matter, and, IMHO, the explanation that "we did that to prevent other accidents" does not sound good. If they wanted a campaign against car accidents, they could have passed the idea to higher-ups, or used non-identifiable photographies. To me, it just sounds like "we got caught, we need to make up a good excuse".
  • The anonymity of internet helps to get issue #1 out of control. That should be the real issue here, but it has been previously discussed a lot here. The only thing that could make this -barely-interesting here is that in this case, most of the people should be expected to side with the family that wants the information restrained, while usually the slashdot crowd -me too- sides with the part that puts the information online. Either way, the general result is that it is not possible, at least right now.

Instead, you pass these points and begin moralizing about the circunstances of the accident. What does it matter that the girl whose photos were -unlawfully- distributed was DUI? It makes it more ok than if the girl was sober and the accident was someone other's fault?. It has no relation at all. Also, it is disturbing to find that you do not know nothing about her family except what you read in the article/s, and yet you are able to judge their actions just from your prejudices.
IMHO the family has all of the right to complain about the mishandling of the pictures and the very light disciplinary action taken. And suing the PD is a sensible action to take, given that it is it that should have ensured, in the first place, that procedures, sanctions and information to the agents are enough to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen.

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721437)

Your life up until this accident has sounded fairly idyllic and easy.

Except for the brain tumor and intensive radiation treatment. Yeah, that's a fucking idyllic and easy walk in the park there.

Did you bother to read past the first paragraph?

Re:You Can't Fight the Internet (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721517)

In my opinion, it would be more heroic of you not to spend a second mortgage suing your police department but instead using that money to create awareness of hazardous driving, starting a college fund in her name, donating that money to charity in her name or doing something less destructive with it in her name. Right now, the public's memory of your daughter is for the wrong reasons and you're just exacerbating the situation. Be above that. Change things for the better and remember her fondly, not as a never ending court case.

Perhaps, but if it were my daughter I'd spend every penny I had suing anyone who posted those pictures into bankruptcy. As I (barely) recall CA law they have some pretty strong "right to publicity" laws to protect the use of people's images. While that is designed to allow heirs to control the use of famous, no dead, relatives and profit from their fame; perhaps it could be used in such a situation.

Just because you can do better things doesn't mean you have to let assholes continue to be assholes.

cyber-harassment? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27720991)

I would just call it harassment. If somebody keeps on getting prank calls on the telephone, it's still called harassment.

Re:cyber-harassment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721543)

What if it's a different person calling each time. How would they categorize this?

Breaking news! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721001)

In an unprecedent show of solidarity, plaintifs from the less popular cases of meatspin vs goatse.cx, two girls vs a cup, and several hundred angry badgers vs a snake have joined the lawsuit.

gross. I don't want to see it either. (5, Informative)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721037)

I don't want to see these photos, and the parents and family shouldn't ever have to see them either.

The officers and department should probably be punished in some way to avoid this sort of behavior again. I am almost certain there is a policy against releasing accident photos in such a casual way.

As for stopping the spread on the internet, it's too late. It's probably already in the wayback machine and google images cache. At this point the best we can do is make a firefox plug-in that detects the image and censors it. Then install the plug-in on the family's computers.

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721195)

At this point the best we can do is make a firefox plug-in that detects the image and censors it.

You fucking firefag. Do you people really have to wank off over your boyfriend substitute in every fucking thread?

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721557)

Safari fan I see?

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721207)

Agreed. Forgetting all the exact details for a second, let's say she died because some guy side swiped her off the road and into a tree instead and was not her fault....
Now can you see how unsympathetic it would be to release the death photos from the crash scene? You could almost construe the release of the photos as harassment to the family.
And, on another note, the photo's taken at scenes or wrecks/crimes taken by the police dept.'s camera, and indeed the PD's property and NOT the officer's who took them. In other words, those officer's needed persmission to disseminate the photo's, and literally stole from the PD. 'Nuff said.

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either. (5, Insightful)

aztektum (170569) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721287)

I'm reminded of a story about the Buddha. Paraphrased: A woman came to the Buddha filled with grief over the death of her child. She asked the Buddha if there was anything that could be done to cure her grief. The Buddha said he knew of a concoction that would do so, and listed off ingredients. The woman got excited and said she would collect the ingredients post-haste. Before she left the Buddha said "The ingredients cannot come from a household that has experienced the loss of a loved one (child, parent, grand-parent, sibling)." The woman agreed to follow the directive and went off in search of the ingredients.

Everywhere around town she went she found people that were willing to give her the items she requested. However when mentioning the stipulation that it come from a home where no one had died, everyone had to turn her away. She went throughout the whole village and was unable to find someone that had not dealt with such a loss. Realizing this, she discovered the cure to her grief.

Life spares no one of suffering.

Are the people posting these all over for kicks utter twats? Yes. Is the family over reacting? Also yes.

No one should have to see their child in such a way, but plenty people do. If you live in a warzone like Iraq or another country that deals with terrorist bombings all year long, likely you've seen it live.

But by all means, let's make an emotionally charged issue out of this. Let's censor the Internet. That will surely stop these things from happening in the first place, right? Thank goodness!

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either. (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721577)

Obviously censoring the Internet isn't going to help. Firing the two bozos who leaked the photos would be the first step, just to keep it from happening again. As far as the assholes plaguing the family with photos, the family should change their email addresses.

That being said, do not belittle the loss of a child, especially one in their teens. This alone can devastate a parent's life -- unable to work, to laugh, to do anything other than stare at the wall wishing their child was back. That someone would exacerbate those feelings of helplessness is beyond forgiveness.

Re:gross. I don't want to see it either. (2, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721473)

I don't like to see these pictures either, and I wish they would go away. But then there are a lot of people that do. Some children appreciate the gore. Some conservative christians enjoy spending their days marching up and down the street displaying the gore to all passerby. It would be nice if the law would allow police to prevent such disgusting behavior, but there is freedom of speech. I may not agree with it, but as an an American I am duty bound to protect it.

The solution may be to prevent such photos from being taken. Alternatively, as a society we might simply shun those who enjoy such activities, asking them kindly to look at their naughty pictures in the privacy of their own home, not on the public street.

Likely to backfire (3, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721041)

Take a random Joe like myself, who hasn't heard of Nikki Catsouras: now I'm aware of the existence of grisly photos of this unlucky young woman. Some of these random Joes will likely be interested in seeing those photos in spite of the family's wishes. And thus the number of people who saw the pics has increased.

Unfortunately, their only practicaly recourse is just not to look at those pics. I, who has not heard of this woman or her accident before, have not seen the photos, ever, so it is possible to avoid seeing them.

Re:Likely to backfire (4, Insightful)

badcowboy (879744) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721097)

Schadenfreude - people want to see the pictures - it is human nature. Think of it as reality television gone horribly wrong. Ever wonder why an accident scene attracts people and will stop traffic even on the other side of the freeway? I had a friend who wanted to carry a manikin head in the car so he could toss it out when going by accident scenes so that people would have something to look at.

Re:Likely to backfire (0, Troll)

pxlmusic (1147117) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721179)

they do that here in droves.

atlanta is the rubbernecking capital.

fail.

Re:Likely to backfire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721407)

i, for one, do not want to see the pictures.

i dont rubberneck at accidents other than to see how badly the vehicles are damaged. first sight of blood i turn away.

the misfortune of others is not fascinating to me, its depressing.

Re:Likely to backfire (5, Insightful)

MiKM (752717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721139)

Not to be callous or anything, but I wouldn't call her "unlucky". Tragic? Yes. Unlucky? Getting hit by a drunk driver is "unlucky". Driving a car at 100 MPH while on cocaine is incredibly poor judgment. I agree with your point, though - I hadn't heard of her either. Sadly, three of the top four Google results contain pictures of the accident.

Re:Likely to backfire (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721447)

Why do you think the family is hoping to eradicate the images from the Internet or stop other people from seeing them? Their own attorney stated, "Putting these photos on the Internet was akin to placing them in every mailbox in the world." Does it sound to you like they are hoping to un-do that? To me it's pretty obvious they're suing for the pain and suffering caused to them by the police, and possibly to decrease the chances of it happening again.

Smash racist police brutality with workers power!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721063)

For international socialist revolution! Workers to power!!! Long live Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky!

Re:Smash racist police brutality with workers powe (5, Funny)

cheftw (996831) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721253)

Long live Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky!

Is it not a little ironic that they are all long dead?

Re:Smash racist police brutality with workers powe (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721559)

... and I'm not feeling too good either!

The 2 responsible should be fired (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721099)

And that's just the start.

  1. They should lose any pensions and should never be able to work in law enforcement again ... anywhere in the US.
  2. If this is a crime then they should be prosecuted as criminals. It should be investigated and if necessary, prosecuted external to the local police department and DA. Both groups want it swept under the rug.

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired (0, Offtopic)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721303)

1. They should lose any pensions and should never be able to work in law enforcement again...
2. If this is a crime then they should be prosecuted as criminals.

If these were law, persons of authority making a mistake, will be receiving harsher punishments than criminals.

This will deter good people from joining the police and patrol positions, and attract bad, smart people into joining the police and patrol positions.

Re:The 2 responsible should be fired (5, Insightful)

muridae (966931) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721487)

Persons of authority should be held to more account than the citizens they protect. This was not a mistake, accidentally leaving the files on a vulnerable computer or on an internal server that happened to be externally visible for a day.

This was an effort by those officers to distribute the files to people outside the police department who, frankly, had no business seeing them. They say it was to discourage their own family from driving drunk or speeding, but who's to say. If they had been informed about normal procedure and knew these pictures should not be distributed then they should be held accountable for it.

Don't charge them for mistakes. Charge them if they willfully breached protocol for their own fun. And make it harsh.

How is it possible?!? (2, Insightful)

BlueF (550601) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721161)

I am so entirely baffle as to why people would want to view this sort of photo, let alone send such an email. I'm ashamed to be the same species.

Re:How is it possible?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721297)

Probably the same reason why site like Ogrish.com and Rotten.com excist. People are fascinated by death, and the different forms it takes.

Re:How is it possible?!? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721323)

Curiosity is a normal behavioral attribute of our species. Being a total dick is a result of cultural, parental, and peer learned behavior. Curiosity is a very important survival strategy. Case in point I'm sure you wouldn't be doing 100mph while on cocaine if you saw these pictures, thus increasing your chances for survival and passing on your genetic information.

Re:How is it possible?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721325)

Im with you there.

Heck if i had an uncle who sent me those kinds of pictures to scare me into driving safer id surely ream him out if not also beat him down for sending such disturbing images.

Side note .. what ever happened to the HIPPA laws? Im pretty sure they apply even if shes dead. Also I havent looked into it but sounds like she was a minor... so isnt it federally illegal for her image to be released like that? Its sad its on the net now and you might be able to make those who first published the pictures and those who sent the emails to the family. It wont really solve much however it would set a precidence for harassment and ensure that other CHP like groups would never release images like that without authorization.

Because it's interesting. (2, Insightful)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721499)

Every visit http://www.stileproject.com/ [stileproject.com] ? It's full of death, accident, and medical photos. It's interesting. If you've ever wondered what happens, for example, when a motorcycle loses against an 18-wheeler, you can see for yourself.

It's plain old curiosity.

Everyone is fascinated with images of mortality, for in them they see their own possible demise.

*sigh* (5, Informative)

crimsonshdw (1070988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721193)

I remember this too. It was passed around last year because of how graphic the accident was, and as a cynical tale of poetic justice to the stereotypical spoiled daughter totaling daddy's Porsche (which is why it went viral, and with help from 'chan). The accident tore her family apart and everyone can sympathize with how much emotional trauma is and will be caused because of the accident. What limited a lot of the empathy from people was the fact that she was speeding in her dad's sports car and died a totally frivolous death. Sending her father crash site pictures with captions for ***** and giggles is so fundamentally flawed. * * * Anyone else read the part where they blamed the tumor on daughter doing coke? "It turned out to be benign, but 8-year-old Nikki had to undergo intensive radiation, and doctors told her parents the effects of that treatment on her young brain might show up someday--perhaps by causing changes in her judgment, or impulse control. Her family believes that's why, the summer before the accident, Nikki tried cocaine and ended up in the hospital in a cocaine-induced psychosis. She used cocaine again the night before the accident, her family says. Lesli and Christos discussed checking her into a hospital, but decided against it: she was to visit a psychiatrist the next day, a specialist on brain disorders. So they let her sleep it off, and the next day, the three of them ate lunch together."

Re:*sigh* (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721347)

Thanks for the back story but seriously, this is /. not 4chan. You can curse here and please use paragraphs.

Thanks.

Re:*sigh* (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721445)

I won't. Fuck these people. The girl driving in such a way on public roads deserved it. Anytime someone drives like that on public streets and manages to only kill themselves, the day has gone well. More often than not people like her kill several innocent motorist or pedestrians AND GET AWAY WITH IT.

It is poetic justice, and the parents deserve to be reminded EVERY DAY what a piss poor job of raising their children they did.

Never heard of her before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721229)

But now they somehow made me aware of it... and the morbid fascination of it made me look those up.
Keep in mind, not for the faint of heart: Photo [encycloped...matica.com]
Yes, horrible: But keep in mind that this was due to her own fault, and I can't think of a better picture that makes other people aware not to fuck around with a car... all high on cocaine.

Seems like karma to me. (4, Insightful)

DamienNightbane (768702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721305)

Don't let your coked up daughter steal your sports car and go on a joyride if you don't want people to remind you that you're a terrible parent every day for the rest of your life.

Re:Seems like karma to me. (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721385)

Wow. Please, never have children.

Re:Seems like karma to me. (1)

DamienNightbane (768702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721495)

Why? Are you suggesting that I'm going to let my kid get her hands on coke and steal cars?

Re:Seems like karma to me. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721523)

Seriously. Kids start doing things you don't want to "let" them do as soon as they can walk. Sometimes sooner.

No parent should ever be subjected to what these guys have gone through, regardless of the stupid choices their kid makes.

And where the fuck are all the people who whined here on /. last week about poor Saddam being "tortured" by forcing him to watch a cartoon?

Free speech != speech without consequences. Any real Libertarian understands this.

Re:Seems like karma to me. (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721429)

I don't know about karma, but I don't have much sympathy for the kid. She knew the risks of cocaine when she decided to use it. Unfortunately, only her family has to live with the consequences.

BAWWWWW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721311)

You know there's tons of this shit on the internet. Look up Dead-Chan. Go to fucking Liveleak. What makes these people any more different than anyone else? Catsouras is wealthy.
Fuck all what happens to people like you and me. Get a fucking thick skin and learn how to internet, faggot. And it's pretty gay to argue that whatever he does will trickle down to the rest of the proletariat because nobody is going to care in the end.

Re:BAWWWWW (0, Flamebait)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721409)

The difference is, dumb cunt, that you go to those sites voluntarily. It's about as far opposite as it is possible to go to having the picture of your dying daughter emailed to you.

Horrible! (1)

cyberzephyr (705742) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721317)

I am astonished with this situation.
I wish there were something i could do to fix this injustice.
We may be geeks or whatever but this is beyond the pale and as black as Dick Cheneys heart.

Re:Horrible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721481)

She went on a cocaine fueled roadrage, almost killed a fellow driver and would've no doubt drove along happily at the same speed had not a helpful toll boot popped up to stop her.

As for sending the pictures to her parents, well, being her parents we can't really free them from guilt, their genes, their child, they rised her and then lent her the porsche. Them making a fuzz of this also indicates they're not the brigthest.

It's really not as black, cruel and heartless as one might think.

Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others (4, Insightful)

gadlaw (562280) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721337)

There are whole industries based on helping us laugh and yuk it up at the expense of other human beings. Like the Romans packing the Coliseum to watch people fight to the death or be eaten by wild animals we as a race revel in the misery of others. All of the so called 'reality shows' out there allow you to look in on many aspects of misery and discomfort of other people. Marry a Millionaire, The Bachelor, even your game shows are there not so you can see someone win but so you can see lots of someones lose and lose miserably. Let's get that close up of the woman who debased herself for weeks chasing after 100 thousand dollars and who puts her future in the hands of some good looking bachelor fellow and who just lost, the tears streaming down her perfectly done make up job are priceless. The latest internet sensation is a woman who came onstage and everyone was already laughing at her and her awkward, less than attractive ways. Nobody was there to hope that Susan Boyle could sing, they were there to make fun of her and most of the contestants on those shows are there for us to laugh at and even when it gets to the few good singers those of you who watch are hoping to see someone fail more than you're hoping that everyone does well. We love the misery and we love to wallow in it. On the internet isn't the main reason for the website 'The Smoking Gun' so we can see people debased and brought low so we can laugh at them? Every week with the cooperation of Police all around the United States they find the mug shots of people at their lowest point and collect the ugliest, the prettiest and the most absurd photos they can find so we can all laugh at them. We're not told that the attractive woman whose picture becomes internet fodder was arrested after fighting with her boyfriend, mother or for not having her Driver's License when stopped for going five miles over the speed limit. No, we get to laugh and guffaw and make jokes like 'bath her and bring her to my tent' for our own amusement. Meanwhile, there she is, forever on the internet because the dignity of human beings isn't our concern and it certainly isn't the concern of the people who get those mugshots and post them for all to laugh at. Human dignity isn't high no the list of things that Police concern themselves with as witnessed by the weekly mugshot review from The Smoking Gun and posted at Fark. But the Police are only a reflection of the rest of society they come from and the posting of grisly car accident photos is a reflection on us. There should be privacy rules and laws against that since common decency isn't one of the more common attributes of people if it ever was except in our best, most rose colored visions of ourselves.

Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others (4, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721497)

Speak for yourself. There's a reason I don't own a television. The TV shows produced with a big budget use it to depict grisly murder on a nightly basis (Dexter, CSI). The ones with a smaller budget use it to depict misery and failure ('reality' TV). The religious channels wallow in it and use it to guilt people into donating money, thereby excoriating their guilt, which instantly translates into 'I can watch it some more now, and even if I'm a horrible person for doing it, I'm also forgiven.' The hundreds of available channels serve only to multiply the effect. No thanks.

Re:Let's all Laugh at the Misery of Others (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721571)

TeeVee? What's that???

I vaguely recall such a thing, back in '95, when I found the intern... oh, wait.

If it's not a crime, it should be. (1)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721371)

We give members of the police, fire department, IRS, etc. authority over us, and grant them special access to our personal affairs to allow them to do their jobs.

When these people abuse their authority, or misuse this special access, they're not just betraying their organization, they're betraying all of society. As such, this shouldn't be just an internal disciplinary matter: it should be a crime.

IANAL: is there in fact a criminal charge that can be laid on these guys, something specific to their role as public officials?

Re:If it's not a crime, it should be. (1)

faedle (114018) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721519)

The photographs were collected as part of a police investigation. As such, they are a matter of public record, and can be obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The only "crime" committed here is that two officers did not follow internal policy, which is hardly a federal offense.

From what I understand, the officers in question were disciplined for not following the proper procedure.

Or, are you suggesting that pictures taken by the police are not subject to disclosure? Be careful what you wish for.. do we really want the police to be able to decide what information they collect we can and cannot have access to?

I, personally, would prefer a situation where the information is available, even if it might disturb. Allowing the cops to say "no, you cannot has" is a dangerous precedent.

Perhaps a more effective strategy (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721375)

I'm not sure how well this would work, but it seems like it would be worth a shot. Next time someone wants to get pictures off of the internet, it would be interesting to see what would happen if they sent a story in to /. (or some other similar and large site) something like this:

Hello, my name is x. Pictures a, b, and c are circulating on the internet, and because of d are causing me enormous emotional grief...(further explanation)...I'm asking you please, if you know any kindness, not to circulate these pictures. Thank you.

Now obviously there are completely amoral places on the internet that are going to do whatever the hell they want, but it seems to me like a significant portion of the internet would react positively to such a plea.

Re:Perhaps a more effective strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721525)

Your optimism regarding human nature is very, very amusing.

They should find those who emailed him... (1)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#27721411)

They should find the people who emailed him and shoot the fuckers. They've obviously got serious mental issues so society would be a far better place without them.

Re:They should find those who emailed him... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721459)

Hell, if we were feeling really atavistic, we could drop him off a cliff with cameras at the bottom. Then send the pics to his parents. Then they can sue, and the whole stupid cycle can start again.

Where's your LOLCATS now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27721529)

When you're spamming your memes and running around like fucktards in your Guy Fawkes masks, remember that this is the other face of your beloved Anonymous.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>