Should influencers be allowed to sue to block public records requests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.

I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”

Here is a novel idea. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!

But then how would they get rich influencing? Their entire business model depends on people not minding their business.

That is also none of your business. I think it's kind of gross that people want these records.

If the info is out there concerning everyone else, there is something absolutely gross, dishonest, abusive about her trying to hide what is public information. 911 calls are public. She has no right to block those and I don't give one crap about what you think of people who listen to them.

It also *is* other people's business when a child dies for preventable reasons. If there's a police report, there is almost always a public interest in releasing it. In this case:

- releasing the police report helps disseminate information about pool safety and might alert other parents with backyard pools to how quickly a child can die because you have failed to secure your pool or supervise the child closely enough. Releasing the report can save lives.

- alerts others in the community to the fact that this family has an unsecured pool and a history of failing to supervise kids. Not only will this let others know that their kids are not safe at these people's house, but it might make them more thoughtful about taking their kids to other homes and know better what to look for or ask about.

While I would ordinarily be inclined to agree, the strange obsession with this accident is creepy. I find it deeply disturbing, and perhaps strong privacy protections is the only way to address that.

Without a doubt you are being paid by the family. There is no strange obsession. There is outrage that parents caused their child to die due to their own blind self interest.

About 400 kids die of each year in pool drownings, many in similar circumstances to this one. How many of those have you posted about?

You seem new here. We discuss neglectful parenting incidents from the news regularly.

Then post links to the other threads where you've posted about downings. Given the number of downings each year, you must have a lot. Just a random set of 20 or so should be fine to demonstrate you're not strangely obsessed with this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are so mean.

Emilie was/is considered one of the more normal and down to earth mom 'influencers' too. A wholesome sweetheart. Just tragic.

Tragic for her. Her deadbeat husband was betting on basketball rather than parenting. He’s criminally negligent and lucky he isn’t being charged.

PP here. I can definitely see this. But she is getting hammered just for being an 'influencer'.

She should be hammered for exploiting her child and not having a fence around the pool.

She is monetizing her "happy family" and her "parenting." She put it all out there, repeatedly for money. She doesn't then get to be shocked and offended there is extra scrutiny here. Especially when it turns out her "perfect happy family" was really just for show. They didn't properly protect their children from a known hazard and her DH seems like a sperm-donor father who isn't engaged in parenting.

So they should be punished extra harshly because you don’t like their lifestyle or career?

Not pp. What a childish response. They are expecting to be treated differently from other people who go through this. That is hypocritical and disgusting. Do you think the father in this case should be charged with neglect?

Taking your eyes off your kid for a few minutes is not neglect. Every parent has done it.

Are you paid by this family? This isn't just taking their eyes off their child for a few minutes and you know it. Your posts are intentionally misleading. You are dishonest.

These are parents who didnt bother to put up a safety fence around their pool. They have 2 children under 3 years of age. These are parents who weren't concerned that their 3 year old could open the door to the pool. Most people who have pools have safety fences around them and additional locks on the door that leads to the outside near the pool. Not these idiots. Dad was busy betting on basketball for at least 9 minutes while he knew the 3 year old was outside by the pool by himself.

Fences aren't required in Arizona. Lobby to change the law if you think this should be a prosecutable offense.

But it seems like you're more interested in judging this particular family.

Most parents even without pools take steps to prevent toddlers from accessing the outside of the home unnoticed. Most exterior doors have a deadbolt that a three year old can't reach. And most parents with industrious three year olds add extra layers if needed. Please stop trying to make this sound like a normal parenting accident. It isn't.

We already know accidents caused by insufficient supervision and safety precautions are common. They're not typically typically prosecuted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are so mean.

Emilie was/is considered one of the more normal and down to earth mom 'influencers' too. A wholesome sweetheart. Just tragic.

Tragic for her. Her deadbeat husband was betting on basketball rather than parenting. He’s criminally negligent and lucky he isn’t being charged.

PP here. I can definitely see this. But she is getting hammered just for being an 'influencer'.

She should be hammered for exploiting her child and not having a fence around the pool.

She is monetizing her "happy family" and her "parenting." She put it all out there, repeatedly for money. She doesn't then get to be shocked and offended there is extra scrutiny here. Especially when it turns out her "perfect happy family" was really just for show. They didn't properly protect their children from a known hazard and her DH seems like a sperm-donor father who isn't engaged in parenting.

So they should be punished extra harshly because you don’t like their lifestyle or career?

Not pp. What a childish response. They are expecting to be treated differently from other people who go through this. That is hypocritical and disgusting. Do you think the father in this case should be charged with neglect?

Taking your eyes off your kid for a few minutes is not neglect. Every parent has done it.

Are you paid by this family? This isn't just taking their eyes off their child for a few minutes and you know it. Your posts are intentionally misleading. You are dishonest.

These are parents who didnt bother to put up a safety fence around their pool. They have 2 children under 3 years of age. These are parents who weren't concerned that their 3 year old could open the door to the pool. Most people who have pools have safety fences around them and additional locks on the door that leads to the outside near the pool. Not these idiots. Dad was busy betting on basketball for at least 9 minutes while he knew the 3 year old was outside by the pool by himself.

Fences aren't required in Arizona. Lobby to change the law if you think this should be a prosecutable offense.

But it seems like you're more interested in judging this particular family.

Yep. Fences are not required. They were idiotic for not having one with small kids but they are not required. I live in AZ and don’t have a fence around our pool. I also do not have small children. Most people don’t fence their pool and are in compliance with the law.

[Anonymous]

Everyone has the right to 'sue to block public records requests'. Everyone has the right to do what this family did, influencers or not. This premise is silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has the right to 'sue to block public records requests'. Everyone has the right to do what this family did, influencers or not. This premise is silly.

Well the judge only saw fit to block two pages and now everyone knows what a dolt the husband is. Even then we all suspected it.

Will be interesting to see if/when she revives her channel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has the right to 'sue to block public records requests'. Everyone has the right to do what this family did, influencers or not. This premise is silly.

Well the judge only saw fit to block two pages and now everyone knows what a dolt the husband is. Even then we all suspected it.

Will be interesting to see if/when she revives her channel.

Not sure why you would find that interesting. Why are so personally invested in this? Do you stalk others, too?

[Anonymous]

Imagine being so cavalier with your child’s safety. He would have been in less danger riding around in a car with no car seat. And yet everyone would agree THAT would be negligent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.

I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”

Here is a novel idea. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!

But then how would they get rich influencing? Their entire business model depends on people not minding their business.

That is also none of your business. I think it's kind of gross that people want these records.

If the info is out there concerning everyone else, there is something absolutely gross, dishonest, abusive about her trying to hide what is public information. 911 calls are public. She has no right to block those and I don't give one crap about what you think of people who listen to them.

It also *is* other people's business when a child dies for preventable reasons. If there's a police report, there is almost always a public interest in releasing it. In this case:

- releasing the police report helps disseminate information about pool safety and might alert other parents with backyard pools to how quickly a child can die because you have failed to secure your pool or supervise the child closely enough. Releasing the report can save lives.

- alerts others in the community to the fact that this family has an unsecured pool and a history of failing to supervise kids. Not only will this let others know that their kids are not safe at these people's house, but it might make them more thoughtful about taking their kids to other homes and know better what to look for or ask about.

While I would ordinarily be inclined to agree, the strange obsession with this accident is creepy. I find it deeply disturbing, and perhaps strong privacy protections is the only way to address that.

Without a doubt you are being paid by the family. There is no strange obsession. There is outrage that parents caused their child to die due to their own blind self interest.

About 400 kids die of each year in pool drownings, many in similar circumstances to this one. How many of those have you posted about?

Do those 400 people put themselves out there as some type of model family that we should emulate, and capitalize on that? If not, it’s apples and oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.

I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”

Here is a novel idea. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!

But then how would they get rich influencing? Their entire business model depends on people not minding their business.

That is also none of your business. I think it's kind of gross that people want these records.

If the info is out there concerning everyone else, there is something absolutely gross, dishonest, abusive about her trying to hide what is public information. 911 calls are public. She has no right to block those and I don't give one crap about what you think of people who listen to them.

It also *is* other people's business when a child dies for preventable reasons. If there's a police report, there is almost always a public interest in releasing it. In this case:

- releasing the police report helps disseminate information about pool safety and might alert other parents with backyard pools to how quickly a child can die because you have failed to secure your pool or supervise the child closely enough. Releasing the report can save lives.

- alerts others in the community to the fact that this family has an unsecured pool and a history of failing to supervise kids. Not only will this let others know that their kids are not safe at these people's house, but it might make them more thoughtful about taking their kids to other homes and know better what to look for or ask about.

While I would ordinarily be inclined to agree, the strange obsession with this accident is creepy. I find it deeply disturbing, and perhaps strong privacy protections is the only way to address that.

Without a doubt you are being paid by the family. There is no strange obsession. There is outrage that parents caused their child to die due to their own blind self interest.

About 400 kids die of each year in pool drownings, many in similar circumstances to this one. How many of those have you posted about?

Do those 400 people put themselves out there as some type of model family that we should emulate, and capitalize on that? If not, it’s apples and oranges.

This is all about disdain towards influencers and the influencer culture. People don't really care that much about the kid who died though the disdain is couched in that 'concern'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has the right to 'sue to block public records requests'. Everyone has the right to do what this family did, influencers or not. This premise is silly.

Well the judge only saw fit to block two pages and now everyone knows what a dolt the husband is. Even then we all suspected it.

Will be interesting to see if/when she revives her channel.

Right but the question was about their rights. Not sure why they should have fewer rights than anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.

I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”

Here is a novel idea. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!

But then how would they get rich influencing? Their entire business model depends on people not minding their business.

That is also none of your business. I think it's kind of gross that people want these records.

If the info is out there concerning everyone else, there is something absolutely gross, dishonest, abusive about her trying to hide what is public information. 911 calls are public. She has no right to block those and I don't give one crap about what you think of people who listen to them.

It also *is* other people's business when a child dies for preventable reasons. If there's a police report, there is almost always a public interest in releasing it. In this case:

- releasing the police report helps disseminate information about pool safety and might alert other parents with backyard pools to how quickly a child can die because you have failed to secure your pool or supervise the child closely enough. Releasing the report can save lives.

- alerts others in the community to the fact that this family has an unsecured pool and a history of failing to supervise kids. Not only will this let others know that their kids are not safe at these people's house, but it might make them more thoughtful about taking their kids to other homes and know better what to look for or ask about.

While I would ordinarily be inclined to agree, the strange obsession with this accident is creepy. I find it deeply disturbing, and perhaps strong privacy protections is the only way to address that.

Without a doubt you are being paid by the family. There is no strange obsession. There is outrage that parents caused their child to die due to their own blind self interest.

About 400 kids die of each year in pool drownings, many in similar circumstances to this one. How many of those have you posted about?

Do those 400 people put themselves out there as some type of model family that we should emulate, and capitalize on that? If not, it’s apples and oranges.

Where did they provide relevant recommendations to their viewers related to this accident?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine being so cavalier with your child’s safety. He would have been in less danger riding around in a car with no car seat. And yet everyone would agree THAT would be negligent.

That's a weird example to use given that your parents probably didn't keep you in a car seat at, or much beyond, 3. And given that we've now go so far in the other direction that we have legal requirements that go far beyond what the data indicates is prudent.

Few things related to parenting are objective and fact-based.

[Anonymous]

If you read the report, they had alarms on all exterior doors but they were not turned off. They also had a katchakid netting system for the pool but both parents said they since they had been using the pool often, they hadn’t put it on between swims. The dad was feeding the baby a bottle. He had warmed it and was still feeding the baby when he ran out to the pool, he actually set the baby down outside and dove in to get the toddler. The toddler has taken swimming lessons and according to the report he was swimming for 2 minutes before going under but the area where he fell in didn’t have anywhere for him to grab or get out. He normally was very cautious around the pool (wouldn’t go in on his own) but in this case he tripped over something he was carrying and fell in.

[Anonymous]

So they had a lot of safety measures but had become complacent and didn’t use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So they had a lot of safety measures but had become complacent and didn’t use them.

Kind of pointless if you don’t use them.