Beneficial censure...

[Boerseun]

We have all heard the arguments supporting the Freedom of Speech.

 

I'm all for it, Freedom of Speech is important, and the media should be able to report what they wish in order to keep the government on its toes, and the public informed of the world around them.

 

I have a theory, however, and a question as to the desirability of censorship under specific circumstances:

 

Certain socially maladapted people decide to purchase or steal guns in order to commit suicide. They have so far achieved nothing in life, and the only way in which to be remembered, would be to commit some dastardly deed and at least achieve notoriety, but still be remembered in the public mind for ages to come - even if it is for some nasty deed. The general public knows nothing about Timothy McVeigh's history, about the Third Prize he won in second grade in a painting contest (for instance). The public knows nothing about his intense love of art and how he dreamed of becoming a sculptor one day. The public knows nothing about his kindness towards old ms. Smythe down the road, and how he always used to take her a newspaper and a cup of tea in the afternoons (all of these are merely illustrative, so don't try to look any of it up). The public knows nothing about any of his good traits, which were obscure and forgettable to begin with. But the public knows very well of his aptitude in setting bombs and blowing up buildings. He will live in the public mind for many, many years to come.

 

From a cynical point of view, McVeigh achieved immortality for blowing up that building.

 

Now, we have seen the recent shooting of 31 students in the US. The gunman is dead, so we can only speculate about their motives. Why did he do it?

 

So here's my proposal:

 

I think it would be beneficial if government could decree a total blackout of the shooter's name. The media can report as much as they want about the incident, but they must omit the shooter's name. In such a case, the shooter won't achieve 'immortality', and it won't serve as a role model for some suicidal teenager who wants to kill himself but still wants to be remembered - even if the rememberance is because he killed as many kids as possible.

 

Kids get depressed. They have been committing suicide for years, and they will keep on doing so for years to come. This is not about them. This is about attempting to prevent them from taking others out with them. If they don't see other mass-shooters as role models for 'immortality' in the public mind, they might go and shoot themselves somewhere alone, without hurting someone else. or they might even not shoot themselves at all. But like I said, this isn't about attempting to prevent the suicide itself.

 

Do you think its a good idea to dictate to the media what or what not to print in this case? The argument might be made that it would set a dangerous precedent in controlling the media, so maybe it can be left to the media to make the responsible decision themselves - after all, they can report about all the nitty gritty detail about the shootings, but NOT print the shooter's name. They can even give him some degrading and humiliating nickname to dissuade kids reading the newspaper from following in their footsteps.

 

Thoughts?

[ughaibu]

A member of another board claimed that the US has, on average, one such mass shooting per year, yet how many of the perpetrators can you name? From all the incidents that I've heard of, I can only remember one name, Michael Ryan, I wouldn't be surprised if non-Brits have never heard of him.

[Guest chendoh]

We have all heard the arguments supporting the Freedom of Speech.

I'm all for it, Freedom of Speech is important, and the media should be able to report what they wish in order to keep the government on its toes, and the public informed of the world around them.

Hear! Hear!!

From a cynical point of view, McVeigh achieved immortality for blowing up that building.

I had not thought of McVeigh until you mentioned it.

 

Thoughts?

Unfortunatly, Boe, I have censored your Quote in the intrests of brevity.

 

These situations, haven't really cropped up since corpral punishment was discarded.

 

Now I was not abused, But if I broke a rule; I was punished.

 

That would be a good question to ask as a poll.

 

'Did you ever hear the sound of leather'?