Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Killers in the Media

tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 8:58:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, I heard on the news that there has been yet another shooting in an American school and it got me thinking.

It seems really detrimental to give any infamy to mass murderers. In a lot of cases, getting attention is their primary motivation; isn't fulfilling that desire to be heard and remembered really, really counter-productive?

I don't want to detract from the victims and their families but I can't think of a single reason why the name and face of people who kill other innocent people should be broadcast to the world, UNLESS they're still at large.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 9:38:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I completely agree. I've always though that it's a shame that we know the names of serial killers and not their victims. Of course, sheer numbers make it easier to remember the names of serial killers. It's not just killers, but any famous criminal. Bernie Madoff is like a mafia don in prison. Because what he did was on such a large scale, he claims his prisonmates look up to him...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 10:43:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Tell me, how would you stop the information from getting broadcast worldwide? That would be a serious violation of freedom of speech.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 11:26:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 10:43:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Tell me, how would you stop the information from getting broadcast worldwide? That would be a serious violation of freedom of speech.

The same way rape victims are protected. By law. Violation of freedom of speech comes into play when you're not allowed to speak anything against a certain individual, or certain facts are shown in a biased light, forced by the state.

You're not protecting the guilty, you're disincentivising killing.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 2:57:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems really detrimental to give any infamy to mass murderers. In a lot of cases, getting attention is their primary motivation; isn't fulfilling that desire to be heard and remembered really, really counter-productive?:

Pretty much, but the media just can't help themselves. They prey on human misery knowing that carnage and bloodshed is interesting to viewers. Carnage = ratings = revenue. I know there was a shooting in Oakland at a university, but that's all I know and that's all I care to know.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 3:01:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 10:43:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Tell me, how would you stop the information from getting broadcast worldwide? That would be a serious violation of freedom of speech.:

I don't think it was a question of mandatory censorship, but rather that of self-censorship. But it's not going to happen. The media will never stop covering grotesqueries and the viewers will never not sense heart-pounding entertainment. Afterall the viewers are, of course, complicit. The viewers are as much responsible for the gladiator games as the rulers of Roman Empire were. Supply and demand... if there's a demand, someone's willing to supply it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2012 4:34:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 11:26:48 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 4/3/2012 10:43:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Tell me, how would you stop the information from getting broadcast worldwide? That would be a serious violation of freedom of speech.

The same way rape victims are protected. By law. Violation of freedom of speech comes into play when you're not allowed to speak anything against a certain individual, or certain facts are shown in a biased light, forced by the state.

You're not protecting the guilty, you're disincentivising killing.

It's actually unconstitutional in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Even if it was constitutional, there's no way the information wouldn't spread via alternative media.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 10:31:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/3/2012 4:34:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/3/2012 11:26:48 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 4/3/2012 10:43:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Tell me, how would you stop the information from getting broadcast worldwide? That would be a serious violation of freedom of speech.

The same way rape victims are protected. By law. Violation of freedom of speech comes into play when you're not allowed to speak anything against a certain individual, or certain facts are shown in a biased light, forced by the state.

You're not protecting the guilty, you're disincentivising killing.

It's actually unconstitutional in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ohh.. I never knew that. I wonder how they'd have won the court case. HOWever, it is illegal here, and that is a great tool to effectively reduce the flow of information. As I see it, Indian government has similar, or arguably even less control over the media. But still, this one law has been almost always upheld.

Even if it was constitutional, there's no way the information wouldn't spread via alternative media.

But it's illegal. Even if it's spread through facebook...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 11:50:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/4/2012 11:40:43 AM, nonentity wrote:
Sad that this thread has so few posts while other forums have mountains of activity *cries*

It makes me sick. I try really hard to get new and interesting discussions going and some muppet pretending to be izbo gets 150 responses. DDO needs a kick in the pants.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 12:41:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You need me to post!

LOL

Seriously though, I actually agree with you. Unless the individual is at large, there is no need to violate his privacy.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 12:47:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 12:41:10 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
You need me to post!

LOL

Seriously though, I actually agree with you. Unless the individual is at large, there is no need to violate his privacy.

I think it's less the question of violating his privacy, than it is of lowering their incentives to kill. It's a shooter, why do we care about his privacy?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 1:00:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 12:47:39 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 4/5/2012 12:41:10 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
You need me to post!

LOL

Seriously though, I actually agree with you. Unless the individual is at large, there is no need to violate his privacy.

I think it's less the question of violating his privacy, than it is of lowering their incentives to kill. It's a shooter, why do we care about his privacy?

I would say that individuals still have rights regardless of their statuses as felons or outlaws. Your idea sets a dangerous precedent and establishes a moral mechanism by which to strip people of their fundamental rights.

Also, if the shooter is not at large, you would not be disincentivizing anything since he cannot do anything anyways. Perhaps you meant that the shame will prevent other shooters from using their powers. However, this is false because we have come to give such individuals a great deal of notoreity in our culture. Some shooters and killers become killers because it helps them attain fame.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 1:17:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 1:00:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/5/2012 12:47:39 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 4/5/2012 12:41:10 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
You need me to post!

LOL

Seriously though, I actually agree with you. Unless the individual is at large, there is no need to violate his privacy.

I think it's less the question of violating his privacy, than it is of lowering their incentives to kill. It's a shooter, why do we care about his privacy?

I would say that individuals still have rights regardless of their statuses as felons or outlaws. Your idea sets a dangerous precedent and establishes a moral mechanism by which to strip people of their fundamental rights.

But then that is the norm... We strip the people of their fundamental right to freedom once we imprison them, right to life if we hang them... You lose some of your rights once you are regarded as a felon.

Also, if the shooter is not at large, you would not be disincentivizing anything since he cannot do anything anyways. Perhaps you meant that the shame will prevent other shooters from using their powers. However, this is false because we have come to give such individuals a great deal of notoreity in our culture. Some shooters and killers become killers because it helps them attain fame.

Most of the shooters shoot because it helps them gain a fan following. Harris and Klebold,for example were supposedly fighting against the bullies- against the 'stupid humans who just could not let them be themselves', something like a final breakdown to years of repression or something like that. And the sad fact is, this did set a precedent- the Seung-Hui Cho massacre was solely inflicted for the fame it would provide. And these are ot lone incidents: School shooters are motivated in part by the fame they would achieve. Strip them of that, and you disincentivise a lot of killing.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 8:31:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 1:17:31 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 4/5/2012 1:00:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/5/2012 12:47:39 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 4/5/2012 12:41:10 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
You need me to post!

LOL

Seriously though, I actually agree with you. Unless the individual is at large, there is no need to violate his privacy.

I think it's less the question of violating his privacy, than it is of lowering their incentives to kill. It's a shooter, why do we care about his privacy?

I would say that individuals still have rights regardless of their statuses as felons or outlaws. Your idea sets a dangerous precedent and establishes a moral mechanism by which to strip people of their fundamental rights.

But then that is the norm... We strip the people of their fundamental right to freedom once we imprison them, right to life if we hang them... You lose some of your rights once you are regarded as a felon.

Also, if the shooter is not at large, you would not be disincentivizing anything since he cannot do anything anyways. Perhaps you meant that the shame will prevent other shooters from using their powers. However, this is false because we have come to give such individuals a great deal of notoreity in our culture. Some shooters and killers become killers because it helps them attain fame.

Most of the shooters shoot because it helps them gain a fan following. Harris and Klebold,for example were supposedly fighting against the bullies- against the 'stupid humans who just could not let them be themselves', something like a final breakdown to years of repression or something like that. And the sad fact is, this did set a precedent- the Seung-Hui Cho massacre was solely inflicted for the fame it would provide. And these are ot lone incidents: School shooters are motivated in part by the fame they would achieve. Strip them of that, and you disincentivise a lot of killing.

Apparently we are arguing for the same side, lol.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 8:42:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is a point in broadcasting this tragic event worldwide. It serves as stark reminder of what happens when ordinary citizens are allowed easy access to guns.

Let's face it, the threat of the British invading America has receded now, so what's the point in letting people run about with firearms?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 8:44:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 8:42:07 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
There is a point in broadcasting this tragic event worldwide. It serves as stark reminder of what happens when ordinary citizens are allowed easy access to guns.

Let's face it, the threat of the British invading America has receded now, so what's the point in letting people run about with firearms?

Good point. A nice compromise would be to discuss the events but to mask the identity of the shooter.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 8:44:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most of the shooters shoot because it helps them gain a fan following. Harris and Klebold,for example were supposedly fighting against the bullies- against the 'stupid humans who just could not let them be themselves', something like a final breakdown to years of repression or something like that.:

Harris and Klebold were bolstered by years of bullying. Had they not been tormented for years, this may have never happened.

And the sad fact is, this did set a precedent- the Seung-Hui Cho massacre was solely inflicted for the fame it would provide. And these are ot lone incidents: School shooters are motivated in part by the fame they would achieve. Strip them of that, and you disincentivise a lot of killing.:

Cho is a different animal altogether because he was clinically disturbed. He may have stated in some way he wanted fame, but it's only in the same sense that Jodi Foster speaking through Hinkley's dog told him to kill President Reagan.

You can't legislate against insanity.

But these are spree killers, which is not the same as serial killers. Serial killers unmistakably enjoy the attention. Because they are depraved sociopaths, they'd up the ante in order to get media coverage. BTK, for instance, demanded more coverage than he received, and when he didn't get the recognition he felt he deserved, he threaten to kill more people.

The point is, with some people it just doesn't make a difference. If you cover the story, you give them the attention they crave. If you don't cover the story, they'll just up the ante until the world starts paying attention to them and their "work."
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 8:47:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 8:42:07 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
There is a point in broadcasting this tragic event worldwide. It serves as stark reminder of what happens when ordinary citizens are allowed easy access to guns.

Let's face it, the threat of the British invading America has receded now, so what's the point in letting people run about with firearms?

Autonomy.

These stupid assholes are supposed to have access to them in the even the government becomes tyrannical and infringes upon their rights, in which case, they can use them to defend themselves.

Dually, we are to have them on hand, so that in the event of a home-front invasion, we have the capacity to protect ourselves.

We may also have them on hand to protect ourselves and our family from domestic terrorism and/or a domestic invasion.

However, we do not have the right to use them in any capacity on each other. That is actually a breach of contract, which is signed when a firearms license is obtained.

On that note. The ownership and use of a firearm without a license is thoroughly illegal. To obtain a license, you must be of age, have appropriate domestic I.D., and have no felonies on your record.

That reminds me... I wonder whether this Zimmerman character has a gun license...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 10:41:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/4/2012 10:31:09 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 4/3/2012 4:34:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/3/2012 11:26:48 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 4/3/2012 10:43:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Tell me, how would you stop the information from getting broadcast worldwide? That would be a serious violation of freedom of speech.

The same way rape victims are protected. By law. Violation of freedom of speech comes into play when you're not allowed to speak anything against a certain individual, or certain facts are shown in a biased light, forced by the state.

You're not protecting the guilty, you're disincentivising killing.

It's actually unconstitutional in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ohh.. I never knew that. I wonder how they'd have won the court case. HOWever, it is illegal here, and that is a great tool to effectively reduce the flow of information. As I see it, Indian government has similar, or arguably even less control over the media. But still, this one law has been almost always upheld.

Even if it was constitutional, there's no way the information wouldn't spread via alternative media.

But it's illegal. Even if it's spread through facebook...

Illegality =/= it doesn't happen.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 1:40:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The more attention the more likley something will be done.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 1:44:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 10:41:10 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/4/2012 10:31:09 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 4/3/2012 4:34:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/3/2012 11:26:48 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 4/3/2012 10:43:17 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Tell me, how would you stop the information from getting broadcast worldwide? That would be a serious violation of freedom of speech.

The same way rape victims are protected. By law. Violation of freedom of speech comes into play when you're not allowed to speak anything against a certain individual, or certain facts are shown in a biased light, forced by the state.

You're not protecting the guilty, you're disincentivising killing.

It's actually unconstitutional in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ohh.. I never knew that. I wonder how they'd have won the court case. HOWever, it is illegal here, and that is a great tool to effectively reduce the flow of information. As I see it, Indian government has similar, or arguably even less control over the media. But still, this one law has been almost always upheld.

Even if it was constitutional, there's no way the information wouldn't spread via alternative media.

But it's illegal. Even if it's spread through facebook...

Illegality =/= it doesn't happen.

The fallacy is that you are assuming that the crime we're considering is widespread to begin with. It's not. No one speaks the name of a rape victim on air because THIS is what happens if you do --->http://post.jagran.com....

Why would a person reveal the name of the spree killer if he knew he would be fired for that. Even through Facebook, the perpetrator could be easily identified. I mean, everyone knows how the police and the government can infirtilate through the accounts. You'd need to set a tough example from the first few mischief- makers and explain to teh people why it's bad- why it's evil, and it'd be quite easy to follow through.

It's not the worst of the law that the government would make sure is implemented.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 1:50:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 8:44:47 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Most of the shooters shoot because it helps them gain a fan following. Harris and Klebold,for example were supposedly fighting against the bullies- against the 'stupid humans who just could not let them be themselves', something like a final breakdown to years of repression or something like that.:

Harris and Klebold were bolstered by years of bullying. Had they not been tormented for years, this may have never happened.

And the sad fact is, this did set a precedent- the Seung-Hui Cho massacre was solely inflicted for the fame it would provide. And these are ot lone incidents: School shooters are motivated in part by the fame they would achieve. Strip them of that, and you disincentivise a lot of killing.:

Cho is a different animal altogether because he was clinically disturbed. He may have stated in some way he wanted fame, but it's only in the same sense that Jodi Foster speaking through Hinkley's dog told him to kill President Reagan.

You can't legislate against insanity.

But these are spree killers, which is not the same as serial killers. Serial killers unmistakably enjoy the attention. Because they are depraved sociopaths, they'd up the ante in order to get media coverage. BTK, for instance, demanded more coverage than he received, and when he didn't get the recognition he felt he deserved, he threaten to kill more people.

The point is, with some people it just doesn't make a difference. If you cover the story, you give them the attention they crave. If you don't cover the story, they'll just up the ante until the world starts paying attention to them and their "work."

This makes complete sense, unfortunately.
yang.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 5:01:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 1:40:10 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The more attention the more likley something will be done.

What can be done? Mass murderers either kill themselves or are caught, with very few exceptions. They do it for attention. Now, when someone with mental issues sees someone else shooting up their school, they start thinking "yeah, I can understand wanting to shoot up the school! Poor me, waaaaaah".

There's no way that people who are thinking about shooting up their school aren't reading all about other school shootings and jerking off (either actually or metaphorically) to their sick fvcking fantasies.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 9:57:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 5:01:27 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 4/6/2012 1:40:10 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The more attention the more likley something will be done.

What can be done? Mass murderers either kill themselves or are caught, with very few exceptions. They do it for attention. Now, when someone with mental issues sees someone else shooting up their school, they start thinking "yeah, I can understand wanting to shoot up the school! Poor me, waaaaaah".

There's no way that people who are thinking about shooting up their school aren't reading all about other school shootings and jerking off (either actually or metaphorically) to their sick fvcking fantasies.:

There's a lot of factors at work, and not all spree killers have the same motive. Some may have psychological issues, in which case, early detection is the only real way to prevent it. Cho, for instance, was known to have made homicidal ideations, yet his psychologists did nothing about it. They knew he was a danger to society but turned him loose anyway. As far as I'm concerned, there should be some litigious actions made against them.

Others were abused as children that fosters anti-social behavior. This is further exacerbated by merciless taunting and bullying at school because, surprise, they're frickin' weirdo's now. These people are desperate to make the world pay for its crimes against them, even to the point of indescriminately killing everyone in sight. Their seething rage has festered day after day until they explode.

This, of course, does NOT absolve them of their disgusting behavior, but it may give insight into early warning indicators, and thus mitigate much of it.

Crazy people exist... they'll always exist. There is no foolproof plan, but there are ways to mitigate the violence.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)