GBI Says No To Larry Flynt.

It goes without saying that Larry Flynt is a vile piece of human excrement, but this is a new low even for Hustler. Thankfully the GBI denied the open record request, filed by Hustler, seeking crime scene photos of Meredith Emerson, who was brutally murdered in January of 2008.

Hopefully Hustler will drop it and leave the victim’s family alone but they probably won’t.


  1. Three Jack says:

    tell larry that he can pickup the pictures in gwinnett county at a meet and greet with joe franklin.

    • B Balz says:

      Awwww c’mon now, Grift, Larry can roll with it.

      I thought your pun is perfectly ‘on the Square.’

  2. Lancer says:

    Clearly crime scene photos are public property and should be accessible to any person that wants them. From the newscast I saw last night it appeared that the GBI was clearly violating the law by not releasing the photos. And now according to the article a Republican is going to introduce a law law to protect us from ourselves. Reactionary nonsense. It would appear that Hustler is working on an article on the murder or crime in general and need research material, I don’t think they are in the habit of running bloddy crime scene pics in a jerk off mag.

    • ByteMe says:

      Clearly there are a lot of Republicans who need to upgrade their reading material to Hustler’s level. Then they would find out that jerking off doesn’t need to include pictures of bloody corpses.

  3. Republican Lady says:

    I agree with the GBI, I don’t think the photos should be released regardless of the reason.

    Some people will scream First Amendment violations but several court cases have ruled that people can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, play a loud stereo at 3 AM, have the blueprints to the White House, Air Force One or Two, or even the presidential limo.

    Cities can deny marching permits to extremists groups in the interest of public safety if there is an overwhelming threat of violence or the city cannot provide adequate protection to all parties involved.

    There is a fine line between privacy and the public’s right to know. Each of these decisions have been based on the totality of circumstances and many times are decided on a case by case basis.

  4. Omni says:

    the law is the law. If the law requires the photos to be released, then release the photo.

    This is just another example of why the government cannot do much of anything. Rules must be followed equally for everyone, no matter how we “feel” about it.

    I don’t like the idea of them publishing the photos. More than that, I do not like the idea of the government choosing when they should or should not follow the rules they have created.

    • Romegaguy says:

      but if Flynt takes it to court and a judge says, “yep that’s what the law says” then we get to talk about those damn activist judges some more

  5. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    I felt that this story was waaaay overblown. And of course, it led to the predictable knee-jerk reaction by the General Assembly.

    My understanding is that Hustler requested all of the information regarding the case, not just the photos, in order to write an article. The GBI released everything except the photos. Hustler seems to think that the photos would benefit the story…I don’t know about that. But it doesn’t seem like Hustler is aggressively pursuing this. But since it’s an election year, it makes for a good story for the AJC and for the General Assembly to show that they’re “one of the good guys” with its predictable knee jerking.

  6. polisavvy says:

    I understand the right of Flynt to obtain the photographs; however, I wonder why the parents don’t seem to have any rights whatsoever? They have already been to hell and back — why must this continue? Also, could anyone answer me seriously why anyone would actually want to see such a thing? I’m not a prude, but damn some things should just remain unseen.

  7. Game Fan says:

    I’m not very familiar with the story. Oh sure I could google it but only got a few minutes. Anyway, was this murder solved or what? If not, wouldn’t the added attention draw more resources back to the case? Not sure how often Hustler does hard hitting news items, but Penthouse is known for having some guts with political stories. So, among the people who are opposed to this, how much time and energy did THEY spend OF THEIR OWN TIME in solving the case? How much outrage did they show then? Or support for the family?

    • polisavvy says:

      Yes, it was solved after a couple of weeks. This guy has also been linked to the murder of a nurse in Florida, and, if I’m not mistaken, he’s a suspect (or actually may have been involved) in the disappearance and murder of two older people in North Carolina. Supposedly, a guy who works for Hustler is writing a book on this horrible person and had requested the photos so he could “better understand” the creep.

      There was a great turnout of volunteers to search for her so I feel pretty sure that they are opposed to this being released. I didn’t search but sure kept up with it and read everything I could find on it. The family received a huge amount of support. I believe, if I’m not mistaken, that thousands signed the “guest book” after her body was found. That was forwarded to the family, who live in Colorado, by the AJC. It was a very heart wrenching case. To see the devastation of the family is something I won’t soon forget, either.

    • Republican Lady says:

      Yes, the man was found, confessed, and charged. He has been investigated concerning other deaths in several states.

  8. drjay says:

    live apt. fire has an interesting take on this story, tying it to a story that meant quite a bit to me when it occurred–i think ultimately the issue is more what would they (the grossies at hustler) do with the photos, couldn’t the 1st ammendment be protected as far as access for the press but reasonable limitations be placed on what they can then do with the photos, esp. as far as commercial use of them is concerned?

  9. Game Fan says:

    Well, I tend to err on the of openness. Not that I’m into “changing standards” or “lower standards” or anything, but, my spider senses tell me there’s a story here.

  10. Doug Deal says:

    The first amendment is about protecting “unpopular speech”. The fact that I and you do not like it very clearly demonstrates that this is unpopular speech.

    Do you people ACTUALLY support the first amendment, or do you just give it lip service to happy feel goodery like tributes to our veterans and exclamations of hate directed at child molesters?

    The same logic you guys are using to limit the First can very well be used to limit the second.

Comments are closed.