Fields Entertainment is the production company and should be partly to blame unless their lawyers indicated to HGTV that it was against the law to air the footage and HGTV said we don’t care
195
Keyserchief5 days ago
+57
I mean, I don’t think that law would survive a First Amendment challenge. It’s probably not worth the bad publicity for HGTV to sue, but a state plainly can’t prevent a network from airing content on the grounds that it would be spiritually offensive.
It very well *may* be offensive in that way, and any private citizen is perfectly free to condemn HGTV for airing it, but that alone doesn’t mean that the government is permitted to suppress its publication.
57
mopsockets4 days ago
+13
Hawaii has a lot of very strong cultural laws. I don’t know for sure, but I’d bet there’s a law restricting for-profit media portrayal of artifacts.
13
Keyserchief4 days ago
+22
There very well may be, but I don’t think it would affect the First Amendment analysis whether or not it was for profit. Commercial speech is subject to more stringent regulation than other speech, but that’s for an advertisement selling a product; it doesn’t typically change your 1A rights if you’re profiting from the speech.
22
mopsockets4 days ago
-9
Hawaii has its own constitution.
-9
Keyserchief4 days ago
+16
Of course it does. But a state can’t pass laws which violate the U.S. Constitution, including their own constitution.
16
mopsockets4 days ago
-12
Well here’s hoping there’s something both of us are missing because random foreigners being able to sensationalize indigenous human remains is some horrifying 1850s-ass shit. And if not, that’s most certainly one of the reasons they will eventually become sovereign again.
-12
MartinezForever4 days ago
+9
Am I missing something, HGTV is an American company and Hawaii is in the USA.
9
TKmeh4 days ago
+10
They were already in deep shit for bypassing building permits and having some of their builds fall apart due to the supplies and such. I’m shocked they were allowed to continue because of the lawsuits they have against them by buyers, but looks like they’re gonna add more to their list of wrongdoings.
10
HemlockHex4 days ago
+1
Yeah publication laws aren’t in question here, we’re talking about buried remains. There is a lot more to it, especially if they are indigenous buried remains. That’s like quoting TV laws in a murder trial.
1
Keyserchief4 days ago
+2
How so? The legal issue I see is: may the state forbid a TV network from airing a depiction of certain buried remains? It does not seem to be the case that *all* depictions of human remains may not be aired, but only those belonging to indigenous persons, and that doing so subjects the person airing them to civil penalty. Regardless of the merit or wisdom of that, it does, to me, very much seem to implicate the First Amendment.
2
HemlockHex4 days ago
-2
Illegal indigenous remains on a property prompts investigation into the likely illegitimate acquisition of the property. The property owner has to work with the respective nation to ensure that these remains along with any burial items are returned to the right people. The nation is welcome to sue the pants off of the contractor for improper handling of a cultural site, and the land owner could see jail time if it’s proven that they were aware of the burial site in any way.
Because it’s a potential criminal investigation, TV is not the priority. The show isn’t breaking the law because of their content or topic, they are breaking the law by disrupting a complicated legal process. State or city laws can open up the show to even more lawsuits that have to do with showing exhumed bodies. There are some blanket federal indigenous protections that have to do with burials too. There’s actually zero question as to if these guys *can* get sued, it’s just a matter of how many times.
-2
Keyserchief4 days ago
+5
On that justification, it’s still probably an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. Hawaii can’t pass a law saying that you’re subject to civil penalties for airing footage of an arrest, which could just as reasonably be said to interfere with a legal process. A judge could issue an order sealing particular footage, but that’s not a prior restraint. There are less restrictive means available to protect the state’s interests than penalizing speech, so it fails the strict scrutiny standard.
But you don’t have to agree with that reasoning—I’m arguing that there is an issue of free speech here, not the merits of the free speech issue itself.
5
HemlockHex4 days ago
-2
It’s not about me agreeing. There’s legal precedent for indigenous burial sites. Like I said, freedom of speech is not in question here. Different court, different case.
You can legally broadcast yourself breaking all sorts of laws, you can’t appeal your first amendment rights to break said laws simply because you broadcasted the action. Additionally, another party is welcome to sue to seize the footage if it violates certain rights that they also have.
-2
Keyserchief4 days ago
+2
Right. But here, the issue isn’t whether it’s a crime to disturb a burial site. No one contests that. The issue is that the act of broadcasting an image of a burial site is, itself, penalized. You absolutely can invoke the First Amendment to defend against that penalty.
2
HemlockHex4 days ago
-2
They weren’t sued for speaking freely, they were sued for other reasons. You can speak freely and still be sued for it, your first amendment rights don’t protect you from retaliation.
-2
Keyserchief4 days ago
+3
> Previews for the episode shown on social media so alarmed Hawaiʻi officials this week that they made a last-minute effort on Tuesday to block its dissemination. The Hawaiʻi Attorney General’s Office sought – and won – a restraining order from a state judge to get the content taken down. **The order did not keep HGTV from airing the episode and legal experts say the court’s action may have been a violation of the First Amendment.**
https://www.civilbeat.org/2026/04/renovation-aloha-sued-for-filming-native-hawaiian-bones/
3
[deleted]5 days ago
+57
[deleted]
57
melejohn5 days ago
+29
For broadcast shows each episode has to go through legal review and S&P (standards & practices) before it gets locked, the lawyers maybe didn’t know the law existed, and you’re probably right that they didn’t have a consultant on the show telling them what was acceptable and what wasn’t.
29
DigiQuip5 days ago
+312
I have huge problem with these people. They position themselves as doing what they do for their community, but the reality is they’re like ever other predatory house flipper. They invest in tons of properties in an area experiencing a housing shortage. They remodel the house to squeeze as much profit as they can and put it on the market at the highest price point their market research supports. I’ve seen a lot of online posts about their business model and they do infect hoard a ton of housing on the island and use their connections to seal back door deals before homes go on the market.
They don’t give a shit about their Hawaiian community. They’re exploiting them.
312
randomalphanumerics5 days ago
+140
I got to know a house flipper that used to work in Tampa Florida, he would pay off a court clerk for heads up on homes going through probate process.
Specifically ones with unpaid taxes etc and owned by poor estranged individuals.
He would then pay a private investigator 1-2k to track down the closest living family member that would inherit. That family member also was very likely to be poor.
Then offer them pennies on the dollar for the home.
Needless to say, house flippers tend to be scummy
140
Asclepius-Rod5 days ago
+49
Jesus Christ how depraved can a person get
49
NeedsToShutUp5 days ago
+39
It's even worse in the South. Lot of cash poor families with land held in heirs’ property and not formally divided the title. If you find a cousin who has a 1/1024th share in the land, you can buy their interest and force a partition sale.
Way more common in black families, and some times the land has been like that 100 years or more. [Good article from Propublica](https://features.propublica.org/black-land-loss/heirs-property-rights-why-black-families-lose-land-south/).
This is an especially harsh issue in North Carolina, where all this coastal land owned for generations by black families is having forced partitions as white developers want to build beach houses.
39
Asclepius-Rod4 days ago
+11
That was an incredibly interesting and depressing read, thank you for sharing that
11
dallyan4 days ago
+3
wtf it’s like a Carl Hiaasen novel.
3
keving874 days ago
+23
I've seen episodes here and there out of boredom and they're always talking about being happy they can renovate and provide affordable housing options for families from there but then they are selling it for like 1.9 million. Everything's affordable if you've got that money.
23
bmwlocoAirCooled4 days ago
+5
Hawaii prices, alas. Add 40-50%. To the cost of about everything. And slow delivery too.
5
keving874 days ago
+5
That's still not affordable for the community they say they are serving, it's mostly for the people who move there.
5
certciv4 days ago
+1
No doubt. And they are at best being disingenuous about their motives. But the point about island pricing is true. It's crazy expensive to live in HI, and housing is a mess. At this point there are almost as many Hawaiians living on the mainland than the islands.
1
brysparx1 day ago
+1
Average price for a home in Hawaii is over a million dollars. They take abandoned trash heap houses and make them beautiful. And I'm a bit surprised how little they make doing it, sometimes losing money.
1
GreenDuckGamer5 days ago
+17
Ugh, that sounds really gross. People like this are a blight on communities.
17
but_good5 days ago
+7
Yeah, it’s shitty. “We’re about rebuilding the communities”. At $1.5+ million.
7
bros4025 days ago
+7
In an episode recently, they bought a house that had someone living in it (they claimed they were squatting) - they told the guy that if he moved out in 10 days, he'd get 10k, every day after that they'd deduct 1k.
They acted like they were being all noble by offering him money.
7
Public-Position77115 days ago
+5
Surprise? House flippers and realtors are predatory scum.
5
lovesabstraction5 days ago
-7
lol should they let those houses remain fucked up?
This is real estate. And they’re taking on risk to do it. Sounds like you just don’t like the concept of house flipping in general.
Also sounds like you don’t have alternative suggestions as to what should happen to dilapidated homes and who’s going to pay for it, so that’s why people like them exist.
-7
Metalsand4 days ago
+5
> Sounds like you just don’t like the concept of house flipping in general.
The majority of house flipping is more about making a house appear up to code rather than actually doing so. For example, if they don't hire a real plumber and instead DIY without threadwrap or interface metal with PVC on a hot or cold line. Or the classic - making older 2-pronged outlets "up to code" by wiring neutral into neutral and ground instead of running a ground. Oooh! Also, painting over moldy drywall instead of fixing water leaks.
The majority of people who flip houses aren't professionals and are usually individuals instead of organized groups because it's much easier to slip through the cracks when it's some random person once a year as opposed to a specific company violating code.
When you get larger teams, it's cheaper and easier to build a new house from scratch (on land that doesn't need much prep) than it is to repair an existing one.
5
Uanneme4 days ago
+1
That’s interesting… it’s easier to build a new home than fix or flip a home? I always thought it was the other way around bc the “footprint” was in place but to your point it makes a lot of sense too. Hopefully, the new homes are well built, these days or the old ones renovated well bc shoddy work seems to be everywhere.
1
Asteroidhawk5944 days ago
+10
If they say they’re helping the community. Make it affordable for the community.
10
Asclepius-Rod4 days ago
+7
If I was one of these Billionaires it’s exactly what I would do. I guess that’s why I’m not a Billionaire in the first place though, I have a soul
7
lovesabstraction4 days ago
-1
Okay..what house in Hawaii is affordable? The shit they buy starts a 1M+
Also is that the job of the government/community, not private citizens?
Not individuals with kids and bills of their own?
Why does everyone expect these people to do everything perfectly, but can’t organize and get local government (who is way more capable and has access to more money/resources) to move a muscle? Or to change the laws if this is truly such a bad practice?
-1
Asteroidhawk5944 days ago
+2
When government actually steps in on housing issues the people who complain call it socialism. The issue is that Hawaii has priced out its own native population to accommodate tourists.
2
Dogbuysvan4 days ago
-1
Having a nice house on the block instead of a crack den is helping the community.
-1
Asteroidhawk5944 days ago
+2
Not when the only people who can afford are airbnb landlords
2
kon---5 days ago
-12
Yea...lots of quick to judge, morally superior types sitting up on a horse in here eh.
-12
Lumpy-Lobsters4 days ago
+1
They do try to come off as being stewards of the Hawaiian culture, but on paper it looks like they are literally doing a disservice to their own people. Maybe those on the mainland that watch aren’t in tune with the issues, but I feel like those that realize the dire situation have opinions similar to ours.
It’s very predatory in a few episodes. They target specific houses and relationships to acquire and make maximum profits.
1
brysparx1 day ago
I disagree. They seem very respectful to me. They once paid a homeless squatter on their property $10,000 to move out and also set them up in new housing. Every house they remodel receives a Hawaiian blessing.
They did not show any remains on their show and educated about the legalities and traditions of respect for ancestral remains. They did not disturb anything and left the $12,000 property untouched. They put up a fence and they ensure that no one will ever build on that property.
Whatever they posted on social media was taken down after learning it was wrong. I agree it was a mistake to do it in the first place but glad they made it right.
0
ToonMasterRace5 days ago
-34
Having been to Hawaii recently, the thing that state needs the most is a diet.
-34
[deleted]5 days ago
+67
[deleted]
67
FantasyBaseballChamp5 days ago
+7
Yeah screw HGTV, but wtf is that law? You can’t broadcast footage of some old bones?
7
EagenVegham5 days ago
-6
Those bones were a person once. Wanting to respect them like you would any other body isn't crazy.
-6
FantasyBaseballChamp5 days ago
+11
Respect isn’t something to legislate. Should it be illegal to air war footage or 9/11 videos?
11
thetatershaveeyes5 days ago
+2
Yeah, it's unconstitutional, but only the biggest bag of dicks would spend the time and money to fight this law.
2
EagenVegham5 days ago
-3
There are broadcast rules for what images can be shown. I'm sure you've heard a newscaster say "The following images are very graphic" before showing something that's still half blurred.
-3
filthy_harold4 days ago
+1
There are content regulations for over the air television but HGTV is on cable.
You can have the filthiest p**** on cable but you can't say f*** on broadcast TV.
1
LuxCrawford5 days ago
+24
I just read the article. Sounds more like HGTV aired the episode without editing the footage of the remains
“As the episode noted, local authorities were contacted as soon as the remains were discovered. Out of respect, the Kalamas made the decision not to develop the lot, and the site later was blessed by a community elder.
The Kalamas last week took to Instagram live to address the episode, saying they followed the protocols they knew and that they never intended to build on the property, while stressing their respect for Hawaiian culture and practices.
The Kalamas have no editorial control over the series.”
24
MandolinMagi4 days ago
+3
So they can't build because one unknown body's remains are there?
Just rebury them in a real cemetery. And yes I realize the locals would raise a stink but at it's some unknown remains, stick them in a real cemetery and get on with life
3
PrpleMnkyDshwsher3 days ago
+1
The real reason is the lot is over a huge lava tube and would need a ton of really expensive work to be suitable to build on.
If you look around the lot in the episode its pretty clear its the last bit of open land around for that exact reason.
1
Fit-Meringue21181 day ago
+1
FWIW I’m for leaving the bones in place because indigenous remains should not be disturbed…
But yeah, they can’t build there regardless, and 12k price tag indicated that. I also think they suspected as much when they bought it. Maybe not the remains, but the unstable land.
1
EveryNameIWantIsGone4 days ago
+29
“Profound and irreparable harm.” Give me a f****** break.
29
Luci-Noir4 days ago
+3
It’s no different than any other religious nonsense.
3
Puzzleheaded-Bed70454 days ago
+5
Native Hawaiian skeletons aren't more special or sacred than anyone else's skeleton
64 Comments