# Newspaper publishes pic of psychopath holding obvious brand-name beer: can they be sued to remove it

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newspaper-publishes-pic-of-psychopath-holding-obvious-brand-name-beer-can-they-be-sued-to-remove-it/624177>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [June 5, 2012, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newspaper-publishes-pic-of-psychopath-holding-obvious-brand-name-beer-can-they-be-sued-to-remove-it/624177 "2012-06-05T17:13:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\
**Post date:** [June 3, 2013, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newspaper-publishes-pic-of-psychopath-holding-obvious-brand-name-beer-can-they-be-sued-to-remove-it/624177/41 "2013-06-03T03:25:39Z")

</div>

> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#):
>
> (I doubt applying an obvious blur would count as image tampering - so long as it is clear to the viewer that the blur is there to obscure, and did not form part of the original image.)

I would say this is almost reasonable, despite it still being censorship, provided an equally prominent disclaimer appeared alongside explaining what was altered and what the named product hidden was.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newspaper-publishes-pic-of-psychopath-holding-obvious-brand-name-beer-can-they-be-sued-to-remove-it/624177.md?page=2)