We’ve seen a little bit of a movement in recent months to try to deny mass shooters the fame that they are presumed to want. But with so many forms of communication, such attempts are quite difficult. In some ways, it might be nice if people could be prohibited from disseminating information about such events, but you run into First Amendment issues almost before you get started.
Question 1:
Would a very narrow, precise amendment to the First Amendment be a good idea? Perhaps something like “Free speech does not apply to the reporting of mass shootings.”
Question 2:
Assume that the government has the power to stifle such reports. Would the use of this power be desirable? Or is the wide-spread knowledge of such events a good thing, regardless of potential consequences?
Question 3:
Do you think that stifling reports of mass shootings is likely to be effective? It is beyond question that some crimes are inspired by reports of other crimes. It is equally true that some mass shooters would commit their crimes because of other motives.
I think that stifling reports would be moderately effective. In addition, for this sort of thing, ignorance is quite possibly desirable bliss. I would be happy to go without ever hearing about mass shootings, even if they were fairly common. However, I would have to think long and hard before narrowing the zone of free speech, regardless of the reason.
I am very very tempted to say the Media is largely to blame for these events because the turn the shooters into celebrities. But, I do not remember how these events were portrayed pre columbine (1999). Basically, mass shootings were common even back then. Mass shootings 1984-2015
Number shootings 1999-2015: 32
Total Deaths: 273
Number shootings 1984-1998: 10
Total Deaths: 99
In very loose approximation that is almost 3 times the amount of shootings post Columbine and 3 times the amount of deaths.
Did the media make the shooters pre columbine into celebrities or was the reporting much less about these events back then? I don’t remember. Maybe someone else will recall.
Should the government censor the news? No.
Should the media self censor? Possibly.
I think this whole “wants to be a media celebrity” thing is a bit overblown. These are deeply disturbed people who often die during their rampage. Not covering them won’t make them go away.
There’s no way to prevent news coverage of their horrible acts, but maybe that extensive media coverage might help all of us realize we need to be doing more to help those with mental illness.
This topic brings up an interesting thought. Is there a reporting style that could be incorporated that would portray the shooters in just the opposite manner they want to be portrayed. Stupid, cowardly, sneaky, etc. I doubt if it would solve the problem but if it helped at all it might be worth adapting.
I do think the media hurts the situation, but I’m loath to draconically impact free speech. Self-censoring by the networks would be ideal, but unless people deny them ratings by boycotting that sort of coverage, that won’t happen.
I never suggested they were glorified, I was just suggesting an attempt at using words that mass murderers did not want to be identified with. The media simply reports and these guys sometimes get off on the notoriety.
Back when ‘family’ newspapers (the ones that landed on your doorstep) did not use the word ‘rape’, I really doubt that rape incidence was affected.
The pics of the SC shooter wrapped in the CSA battle flag was not helpful to the concept of limiting copycats.
Every loser with an AK47 (much cheaper than the AR-15’s the ‘rich guys’ have) has a list of people he’d like dead.
And every little boy in the USA was raised on ‘God, Guns, and Guts Made This Country Great’.
The 'Guns" part of that sticks, it would seem, even if the ‘God’ got lost or misinterpreted.
You are not going to be able to discourage the media practice of “If it bleeds, it leads!” Not with societal pressure or with legislation.
After the recent shooting at Umpqua Community College here in Oregon the Sheriff refused to publicly name the shooter, followed almost immediately by this bitch on CNN saying, “well he won’t name him but we will.” Followed by the shooters name, his agenda, how he was influenced by other mass shootings and wanted to be famous. CNN gave the shooter everything he wanted and more.
Here is a brief look. The media feeds off the dead and they just love it.
Question 1:
Would a very narrow, precise amendment to the First Amendment be a good idea? Perhaps something like “Free speech does not apply to the reporting of mass shootings.”
[/quote[
No.
It’s Inauguration Day 2017. Despite all the security precautions, a shooter manages to fire on the podium at the moment the new President is taking the path. The new Prez, the old Prez, the Chief Justice of the United States and 15 other platform guests are killed.
You want the government to be able to ban all reports in the news about the mass shooting?
First of all, it’s important to understand the motivations behind these crimes (mental illness, ideology, racism, religion or something else). It’s pretty hard to know these things without knowing the identities of the people involved.
Second, it’s impossible to keep people from talking. If the press isn’t allowed to tell you who committed a crime, people will make things up. It’s better for people to know the truth than it is for people to rely on rumors.
Third, the only way to enforce it is through government censorship. Do you really want the government to prevent the news media (and everyone else) from talking about the basic facts of public events? There’s something Orwellian about wanting to keep such things secret. It’s like the memory hole in 1984.
Finally, I don’t trust the motivations of some of the people who are calling for this. I think some of it is coming from people who want to distract attention from the problem of easy access to guns by the mentally unstable.
That’s a different situation, since they would already be reporting, and almost certainly airing live, before any shooting took place. Can’t put a cork in that bottle.
Not that I think a ban could be done at all, but it’s certainly amusing that people that have no problem shredding the 2nd amendment would balk at doing anything to limit the 1st (BTW, not talking about anyone here necessarily, just in general).
There doesn’t need to be an amendment, a law, or a regulation. Just common decency by the media. Just like their policy to not name underage victims unless the parents have consented. Yes, this gets blown by some outlets, but generally it’s just respectable journalism.
I’d like to see the incidence of mass shootings over time, and some kind of indicator as to when CNN came on the scene. I suspect the 24 hour news cycle is a big part of the reason that these incidents are so popular now, and weren’t, back in say… 1978. Back then, you only had so many column inches in the newspaper, and so many minutes on the nightly newscasts. A mass shooting half the country away wasn’t big enough news to crowd out all the local, national and international stuff that people want to see.
But when you have to fill 24 hours a day, suddenly that stuff is like throwing doughnuts to starving cops, and they dwell on it and dig up dirt on those people, and make it into an absolute circus.
That’s perfect for the sort of mass killer who wants to make a statement, like those Columbine dumb-shits, but probably doesn’t make lunatics like the Sandy Hook guy very much of a difference.
I’m not saying it wouldn’t be national news, but that in say… the 1974 Olean School Shooting, unless you were in the western New York area, it might not be more than a headline on the day it happened, a 5-10 second spot on the nightly news that night, and maybe the same when the trial resolves.
I seriously doubt that they broke into TV in Oregon to announce that there was a school shooting in New York, and I doubt that the Seattle or San Antonio papers had much coverage of it.
And that’s the point I’m trying to make- if something like that happened today, we’d hear about it on CNN immediately, and they’d keep after it 24/7 until there was nothing to find out. And so would other internet news services.
The trouble with choice and freedom is that people do what they want despite what others believe is right or wrong. I’m not comfortable dictating to others what they can or can’t do based on the moral concerns of a few.