Last September, Gannett filed suit in Worcester County Circuit Court against the town and its police department seeking to force the town to release the name of a 17-year-old victim who drowned in the ocean off 92nd Street in June 2014. That incident marked the second time in less than two weeks a teen visiting the resort died in the ocean.
The Ocean City Police Department did not release the victim’s name, citing a request for privacy from the teen’s family. Most local media outlets did not pursue the issue any further, respecting the family’s wishes and deciding instead releasing the victim’s name would not serve any public purpose or contribute to the newsworthiness of the story.
Following the incident, Gannett Company Inc. submitted a Public Information Act (PIA) request to the OCPD seeking the victim’s name, but were denied by the department, which stood behind the wishes of the family not to release the information. Gannett then filed a second PIA request asking the resort to point out where in the law a special exception based on privacy was included.
Rebuffed again, Gannett last September filed suit in Worcester County Circuit Court against the Mayor and Council and the police department seeking to force the resort to release the victim’s name. By that point, the media outlet’s quest became less about the release of the individual drowning victim’s name and more about the town’s ability to pick and choose what information it chooses to release or withhold.
More
does anyone still read the tabloid The Daily Times why do the have to be told 3 times no before the understand
ReplyDeletewhat a bunch of clowns
ReplyDeletewhy is it REALLY any of their business? so now they can go do an article on the family? morons
It is called "Freedom of the Press", and this is news, so what a family don't want it out there, I'll bet many politicians, and stars don't want stuff printed, but we all say too bad. Look at older editions of papers from the 50's and 60's, they printed the little troublemakers names, no juvenile molly-codling back then!
ReplyDeleteSo 4:37 you're saying a private, innocent (not a 50's and 60's little troublemaker), unnamed citizen an his family is the same as a public figure whose income is derived from public disclosure? That's a real contorted view of respect for an individual. It's a shame folks like you are still allowed to vote and reproduce.
ReplyDeleteGreg, a "troublemaker" is a lot different than a victim.
ReplyDeleteI guess you think the names of sexual assault victims should be printed in the newspapers as well?
Hey, Bassett! Nobody reads your crap paper, either! LOL!
ReplyDeleteThere are perfectly good reasons for that, and this is one of them.