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: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'.

And? You really want people here to stop talking about this but they don't have to just because you say so.

It’s more than a little odd that people here are obsessed with a months old accidental drowning in Arizona.

Nah, it’s not odd. The details of the report were just released Friday and paint a vivid and haunting image of a three year old struggling for his life, for two full minutes, while dad watches basketball. The report clearly shows a lying, coward of a
Father. And a lovely dead child, and a
Mother who had been warned many times yet disregarded common wisdom and paid the ultimate price. Career, child, marriage- gone like POOF.

What more do you want? I think they got their comeuppance. But the “rage” some of you are feeling is misplaced. It’s sad but they are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

I just want to be able to discuss it with others without being lectured by you, since you asked.

I dont feel rage. I do think it’s an interesting discussion. We will one day look back in awe that people opened their homes and children up for public consumption.

This has nothing to do with why that boy drowned. You’re trying to make a connection that doesn’t exist.

(DP) I actually think there is a connection between her being an influencer and him drowning. I think she resisted adding pool safety features because they were not aesthetically pleasing and therefore would impact the popularity of her videos. She needed to have the “perfect” house, which is simply not conducive to water safety. Architecture Digest isn’t photography ugly pool covers or awkward pool fences.

It’s undisputed that she deleted and blocked comments that she needed better pool safety protocols in light of her son. Why would she intentionally delete those comments?

It’s already been discussed what pool safety measures the house had and it isn’t none. This pool had a cover, it just wasn’t in use.

One safety measure that is not in use = zero safety measures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'.

And? You really want people here to stop talking about this but they don't have to just because you say so.

It’s more than a little odd that people here are obsessed with a months old accidental drowning in Arizona.

Nah, it’s not odd. The details of the report were just released Friday and paint a vivid and haunting image of a three year old struggling for his life, for two full minutes, while dad watches basketball. The report clearly shows a lying, coward of a
Father. And a lovely dead child, and a
Mother who had been warned many times yet disregarded common wisdom and paid the ultimate price. Career, child, marriage- gone like POOF.

What more do you want? I think they got their comeuppance. But the “rage” some of you are feeling is misplaced. It’s sad but they are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

I just want to be able to discuss it with others without being lectured by you, since you asked.

I dont feel rage. I do think it’s an interesting discussion. We will one day look back in awe that people opened their homes and children up for public consumption.

This has nothing to do with why that boy drowned. You’re trying to make a connection that doesn’t exist.

(DP) I actually think there is a connection between her being an influencer and him drowning. I think she resisted adding pool safety features because they were not aesthetically pleasing and therefore would impact the popularity of her videos. She needed to have the “perfect” house, which is simply not conducive to water safety. Architecture Digest isn’t photography ugly pool covers or awkward pool fences.

It’s undisputed that she deleted and blocked comments that she needed better pool safety protocols in light of her son. Why would she intentionally delete those comments?

OK, so let’s assume that connection. Why are people not talking about other kids who drowned and breathless and full of schadenfruede/disdain about how/why their parents were negligent?

Because no one else invited 1M+ strangers into their private lives.

If you are one of the followers, you’re part of the problem.

No, I don’t follow influencers. I learned about this case on Reddit.

I am actively anti influencer and believe these family and mommy bloggers are doing irreparable damage to their own and to other families. They sell image and discourage actual presence- in their watchers and by the creators- and all of the children suffer by having distracted parents living lives in their phones instead of in their living room- present in body if not in mind or spirit- or attention.

This popped up in my Reddit feed because it was both trending and on point with my beliefs around influencers. I still don’t follow Emilie or any other influencer and I still think this is a subject worth discussing.

These people made a living - and a very profitable one- by opening up their children, skin care routines, relationships, and (apparently) their urination emergencies. They bought that pool - the one that killed their child- with viewer clicks.

Why do you want the national interest to center around little sally who drowned in Bethesda and is Mourned by her family and neighbors because who else knows a 3 year old? That child will have privacy because their parents gave them privacy.

Trigg unfortunately did not get privacy in life- turning his death into a circus.

Only two people are responsible for that indisputable fact- his mother and father.

They ask strangers to award him privacy in death yet they didn’t allow him a moment of privacy in life.

Very well said.

I also think discussing it really does bring awareness to the safety issues involved. It's something I'd feel bad about doing if the family was very private, but they aren't so I don't.

Also I think it's important to note that discussing the details of this case that have been made public is very different than stalking this family or flying drones over their property. I'm must discussing public info and news stories on a message board -- I'm never going to approach this family or do anything to them. I don't see anything wrong with my behavior here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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'.

And? You really want people here to stop talking about this but they don't have to just because you say so.

It’s more than a little odd that people here are obsessed with a months old accidental drowning in Arizona.

Nah, it’s not odd. The details of the report were just released Friday and paint a vivid and haunting image of a three year old struggling for his life, for two full minutes, while dad watches basketball. The report clearly shows a lying, coward of a
Father. And a lovely dead child, and a
Mother who had been warned many times yet disregarded common wisdom and paid the ultimate price. Career, child, marriage- gone like POOF.

What more do you want? I think they got their comeuppance. But the “rage” some of you are feeling is misplaced. It’s sad but they are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

I just want to be able to discuss it with others without being lectured by you, since you asked.

I dont feel rage. I do think it’s an interesting discussion. We will one day look back in awe that people opened their homes and children up for public consumption.

This has nothing to do with why that boy drowned. You’re trying to make a connection that doesn’t exist.

(DP) I actually think there is a connection between her being an influencer and him drowning. I think she resisted adding pool safety features because they were not aesthetically pleasing and therefore would impact the popularity of her videos. She needed to have the “perfect” house, which is simply not conducive to water safety. Architecture Digest isn’t photography ugly pool covers or awkward pool fences.

It’s undisputed that she deleted and blocked comments that she needed better pool safety protocols in light of her son. Why would she intentionally delete those comments?

It’s already been discussed what pool safety measures the house had and it isn’t none. This pool had a cover, it just wasn’t in use.

One safety measure that is not in use = zero safety measures.

Rhetorical semantics saves lives /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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'.

BS. You don't get to tell us what we think. Most of us are very angry at the selfish azzhats for putting their needs and desires ahead of the children's safety. I'm completely disgusted by these two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'.

And? You really want people here to stop talking about this but they don't have to just because you say so.

It’s more than a little odd that people here are obsessed with a months old accidental drowning in Arizona.

Nah, it’s not odd. The details of the report were just released Friday and paint a vivid and haunting image of a three year old struggling for his life, for two full minutes, while dad watches basketball. The report clearly shows a lying, coward of a
Father. And a lovely dead child, and a
Mother who had been warned many times yet disregarded common wisdom and paid the ultimate price. Career, child, marriage- gone like POOF.

What more do you want? I think they got their comeuppance. But the “rage” some of you are feeling is misplaced. It’s sad but they are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

I just want to be able to discuss it with others without being lectured by you, since you asked.

I dont feel rage. I do think it’s an interesting discussion. We will one day look back in awe that people opened their homes and children up for public consumption.

This has nothing to do with why that boy drowned. You’re trying to make a connection that doesn’t exist.

(DP) I actually think there is a connection between her being an influencer and him drowning. I think she resisted adding pool safety features because they were not aesthetically pleasing and therefore would impact the popularity of her videos. She needed to have the “perfect” house, which is simply not conducive to water safety. Architecture Digest isn’t photography ugly pool covers or awkward pool fences.

It’s undisputed that she deleted and blocked comments that she needed better pool safety protocols in light of her son. Why would she intentionally delete those comments?

It’s already been discussed what pool safety measures the house had and it isn’t none. This pool had a cover, it just wasn’t in use.

One safety measure that is not in use = zero safety measures.

Rhetorical semantics saves lives /s

An unbuckled seat belt saves no lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'.

And? You really want people here to stop talking about this but they don't have to just because you say so.

It’s more than a little odd that people here are obsessed with a months old accidental drowning in Arizona.

Nah, it’s not odd. The details of the report were just released Friday and paint a vivid and haunting image of a three year old struggling for his life, for two full minutes, while dad watches basketball. The report clearly shows a lying, coward of a
Father. And a lovely dead child, and a
Mother who had been warned many times yet disregarded common wisdom and paid the ultimate price. Career, child, marriage- gone like POOF.

What more do you want? I think they got their comeuppance. But the “rage” some of you are feeling is misplaced. It’s sad but they are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

I just want to be able to discuss it with others without being lectured by you, since you asked.

I dont feel rage. I do think it’s an interesting discussion. We will one day look back in awe that people opened their homes and children up for public consumption.

This has nothing to do with why that boy drowned. You’re trying to make a connection that doesn’t exist.

(DP) I actually think there is a connection between her being an influencer and him drowning. I think she resisted adding pool safety features because they were not aesthetically pleasing and therefore would impact the popularity of her videos. She needed to have the “perfect” house, which is simply not conducive to water safety. Architecture Digest isn’t photography ugly pool covers or awkward pool fences.

It’s undisputed that she deleted and blocked comments that she needed better pool safety protocols in light of her son. Why would she intentionally delete those comments?

It’s already been discussed what pool safety measures the house had and it isn’t none. This pool had a cover, it just wasn’t in use.

One safety measure that is not in use = zero safety measures.

Rhetorical semantics saves lives /s

Sarcasm wastes time.

[Anonymous]

The only agenda here seems to be the person trying to get us to stop discussing this. We can discuss what we want. It’s a Discussion Forum. If you don’t want things about you to be newsworthy, don’t make them newsworthy.

[Anonymous]

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.”

Does the public really need to see video footage of the child drowning??? No, they don't.

That.

[Anonymous]

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.”

Does the public really need to see video footage of the child drowning??? No, they don't.

That.

I don’t need to see it. But it’s clearly they didn’t want the detail of the 9 minutes released and why. It makes them look terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most "influencers" are lower to middle class people who aren't making a ton of money and need to work round the clock for it. Most of them are not going to sue anyone if there is scrutiny about their private life.

If you cherry-pick cases, OP, you will always find facts to confirm your pre-established world view. Hopefully one day you'll understand it's not wise to go through life like this.

A lot of the ones i have seen are from wealthy families and are raking it in and brag about it. I think it depends. If the influencers pretends to be a perfect mom and gives mom advice and then the kid gets injured while she is trying to get the perfect shot people should know so they understand not to emulate her. If her spouse dies of suicide and she respected his privacy and never tried to profit from his attempts at depression treatment, etc then of course leave them alone. I only think the truth should be out if they have done harm to others by lying.

[Anonymous]

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.”

Does the public really need to see video footage of the child drowning??? No, they don't.

That.

I haven’t seen anyone argue otherwise. The released parts were damning and what she tried to have hidden. I
Gladly they weren’t hidden because transparency will likely kill her ability to “come back” from this online- which is a blessing for her newborn. Maybe they’ll live past three if mom and dad have their drug of choice (social media) removed.

[Anonymous]

I just visited Reddit to see what was going on over there. I think there are posters here who have gotten wound up there over her/this situation/influencers because of all the snark pages over there. Yeesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just visited Reddit to see what was going on over there. I think there are posters here who have gotten wound up there over her/this situation/influencers because of all the snark pages over there. Yeesh.

The main snark page was shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

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.

People were commenting on her posts always saying they needed to put up a pool fence, and she would delete the comments and block them. And every year there are stories about tragic drownings. This was an entirely preventable disaster if they had just had any amount of pool security.

Wow. Is this true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Wasn’t the dad also placing gambling bets whilst the child was drowning in the pool?

No, the unemployed SAHD placed the bets earlier. He was locked in to the game to see if his over under hit. The player he bet on was injured, prolonging the game. As soon as the game ended (6:40) he noticed his son was facebown in the pool, dead, and called 911

Does the security footage and/or 911 call really match up with the end of the NBA game?