Toy company makes request after altered images – which hide suspects’ identities in line with state law – go viral

Toy company makes request after altered images – which hide suspects’ identities in line with state law – go viral

A southern California police department has been handcuffed by Lego after the toy company asked the agency to stop adding Lego heads to cover the faces of suspects in images it shares on social media.

The Murrieta police department has been using Lego heads and emojis to cover people’s faces in posts on social sites since at least early 2023. But the altered photos went viral last week after the department posted a statement about its policy, prompting several news articles and, later, the request from Lego.

…

Murrieta police had an internal discussion about posting photos of arrestees in general and announced a new department policy on Instagram in January 2023. The community had requested more of their “weekly roundup” posts, so the department said it started using the Lego heads and emojis to comply with the law while still engaging with Murrieta residents.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1421·
    9 months ago

    How about we not turn the criminal justice system into a spectacle for the masses?

    • Norgur@fedia.io
      70·
      9 months ago

      I always love how baffled podcasters and such are when they report about crimes in other countries where criminals have to be protected from the public (like Germany) and they cannot find mugshots or even a last name.

      It’s none of our business, people.

      • ki77erb@lemmy.world
        735·
        9 months ago

        I agree unless we’re talking about sex crimes like rapists and pedophiles. In those cases, I think we absolutely should know exactly who’s been convicted and whether or not they live near my house.

        • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          331·
          9 months ago

          Reporting on something actively being investigated is how innocent people have their lives ruined by the public. There are registries and maps already for convicted rapists/pedophiles.

        • Norgur@fedia.io
          16·
          9 months ago

          I disagree even with post-conviction. I think that being “the sex offender” forever will drive people in corners they would otherwise have steered clear of. Most sex crimes are domestic violence cases and are not about evil men succumbing to their overbearing and perverse sex drive. They are about control and power. So forcing a sex offender who has committed such an act and then payed for his crime into the role of the pervert psychopath forever is actually not helping anybody.

          Same goes for pedophiles. Should they be hardcore barred from every goddamn child on earth? Abso-fucking-lutely. But I don’t think that exposure is the right tool here. They can be barred from working with children, they can be checked on by police, there is so much one can do to prevent people like them from doing horrible stuff to children. Pushing them onto a corner for what is ultimately a condition they didn’t choose (they did choose to act.on it of course) will just make them the monster they are perceived as, even if they would have managed to get themselves under control had they not been made a pariah for their entire life.

          But I get that this is pretty much a cultural thing. I for my part think that it is right that we do not expose people on maps here in Germany.

          • ki77erb@lemmy.world
            31·
            9 months ago

            I can appreciate your point of view and I realize not every “sex crime” is a sicko pedophile. Even a teenager sending a nude photo to their boyfriend/girlfriend can be considered a sex crime in many places. So there are gray areas.

            However, I stand by the fact that I would absolutely want to know if my next door neighbor was a rapist, pedophile or producer/collector of child porn. That’s just the father/husband in me being protective of my family.

            • Norgur@fedia.io
              6·
              9 months ago

              The father in me also wants to know… Kind of. I only want to know if there is someone that might actually do something. If they don’t do anything to my kid, I don’t think it’s any of my business what this person has done or hasn’t done. That’s for the courts and police to deal with. Since “only tell me when you’re up to no good” is not possible, I actually prefer to not know.

              A system whereby authorities check somehow of they have contact to possible victims and only warn those would be ideal, but how would you implement something like that in reality?

        • zaph@sh.itjust.works
          13·
          9 months ago

          You’re talking about post conviction (or at least I hope you are). The discussion is about pre-conviction.

    • octopus_inkEnglish
      32·
      9 months ago

      Cops don’t even see the problem.

      “We are currently exploring other methods to continue publishing our content in a way that is engaging and interesting to our followers,” Durrant wrote, declining further comment.

        • dalekcaan@lemm.ee
          6·
          9 months ago

          Please bear with us while we make our descent into a dystopian hellscape more marketable and boost Twitter engagement. Don’t forget to smash that like button 👍

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        9 months ago

        You’re a police department, not a fucking Instagram model.

        * Not directed at you, octopus.

    • n2burns@lemmy.ca
      9·
      9 months ago

      I feel like this is a symptom of Police Chiefs/Sheriffs being elected in the US of A. They need to win a popularity contest to keep their job.

  • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
    221·
    9 months ago

    I hope Lego sues them into oblivion. They won’t, but I can dream.

    This would be so easy to show irreparable harm. Using your kids toy likeness on criminal mugshot and police brutality scenes?! One jury I would gladly be a part of.

    • ThannEnglish
      15·
      9 months ago

      What law are they breaking?

      • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
        11·
        9 months ago

        Intellectual Property laws as they did not (presumably) license the likeness from Lego.

        Same reason you can’t put Mario’s face over them. Nintendo will come down on them with the force of a thousand suns.

        • ThannEnglish
          11·
          9 months ago

          I think that for copyright you could argue that its for a transformative artistic purpose, and seeing as it doesn’t supplant legos in the market, I don’t think its clear-cut in either way.