Campus Carrier Editorial Board
How many times have you turned on the TV or logged onto Facebook to see someone do something so completely stupid or morally wrong that you think, “How can that possibly be legal?”
It is a valid feeling to see something you feel is wrong and want to outlaw it. However, some laws that start out with the best intentions can evolve way past their ideals into a legislation filled with terrible implications.
One bill that is gaining attention recently is Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. An article published on USA Today’s website on March 30 has the supporters arguing that the act will protect citizens’ “ability to exercise their religious beliefs.”
While the bill, with similar ones in North Carolina and Georgia, may have been started to protect religious freedom, it has evolved way past this as something that will allow discrimination. This is because the new bill will go against previous anti-discriminatory legislation that tries to protect non-straight citizens from being discriminated against especially in the work force, the education field and the housing market.
The bill may have started out with noble intentions but the implications have gained vocal dissent from a number of corporations and prominent figures, including the NCAA and Hillary Clinton.
We can learn two things from this bill and ones like it. First, be careful. While supporters advertise something as good, like with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, in reality, a law can be far from it. Second, while something may seem like a good idea wait, to show support until you explore all of its consequences.
This is the case with Senate Bill 79, also known as Arkansas’ Publicity Rights Bill. This is a bill with good intentions and possibly bad implications in Arkansas. The bill, according to an article published on the Arkansas Times website on March 31, would supposedly protect, among other things, the names, voices and photographs of all citizens from exploitation. Sounds fair, right?
In intentions, the bill is completely fair. However, it’s basically saying that photographers and videographers need a person’s permission before they use them in a photograph or video. That sounds like a fair thing.
The problem, like with many bills, exists when the bill is put in practice. Photojournalists have to shoot a lot and fast. A photographer could be shooting pictures at a public place like a park and accidentally shoot pictures of a wedding in the background. With the law, they’d then need permission and names from everyone at the wedding. What starts as a nice idea quickly turns into a disaster for freedom of the press.
“The implications of this bill are staggering,” stated The American Society of Media Photographers.
Luckily, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson stepped in this Tuesday, vetoing Senate Bill 79. While good for this bill, we must still judge bills by implications, not just intentions.