I also wish this sort of thing weren’t international news - it shouldn’t even be national, or even region-wide news. What you have here is a murder. Sure what he did was awful, but how is knowing about it important to, well, anyone outside his local orbit? How does me, in Idaho, hearing about him help anybody but the murderer?
No doubt that some would change their views just as some would see their views as being reinforced. “See what’s happened! If the worshipers had been armed, they could have defended themselves.” Most people will not be moved from their default reactions and preconceived thoughts by such things.
Agreed, 100%
Missed the edit window:
I don’t agree with this. I think it has to be reported because this is the world that we live in and this shit is going to keep on happening until we all work together to find a solution to gun violence.
It’s important in terms of terrorism - there’s quite a misconception white people don’t do that in some circles. Unless this is just “murder” and not terrorism to you? And by the way a murder? It’s 49 dead so far, so a hell of lot more than a murder.
It’s important in terms of how certain acts/words of prominent people (politicians, etc.) provoke actions (often in already unstable or primed individuals). Even actions outside the country of origin. To understand how one thing (a speech or commercial or social media or whatnot) impacts another and to decide if/how actions should change to try to prevent that.
An event which put him personally in danger of dying changed his mind. That isn’t to say that watching a similar event from the safety of his computer screen would have changed his mind.
It should be shown. The video also makes me disgusted by extremism, so you really can’t say what effect it’ll have overall. Some lone wolves may find it inspiring but I’m sure far more people will realize how disgusting nativism and extremism can be by watching it.
That was an experience he was personally present for, not something he watched on a screen while sitting comfortably on his lounge. I think if you can pause the carnage while you get yourself another Mountain Dew, it’s not going to have the same impact.
Oh hell no. I don’t want to see it. Nor do I think that any good can come from anyone seeing it. One can argue the imaginary or real merits of it, sure. One can argue the political and social implications, ok. But I can’t debate those details.
What the world needs is love. Showing this video would be antithetical to that.
Both the video and the manifesto are being censored. But if we don’t have access to something, how can we argue against it? These days, you can’t just say, “Trust us.” There are too many examples of that trust being abused; not to mention becoming fodder for conspiracies. Contrariwise the Unabomber was caught when his manifesto was published.
In Denmark, CNN reports that people are being prosecuted for sharing another video.
Well if you believe the History channel, it was seeing all the carnage in Vietnam on their colored TVs in the comfort of their own homes, that turned public opinion against the war. There were also the very graphic images printed in magazines that had the same effect.
Why not let people make up their own minds?
My issue with is really the feelings of the survivors and of the loved ones of those hurt and injured.
Though I admit I don’t like spreading exactly what the killer wanted spread, that’s a lesser concern for me.
Agreed. I’d like the media to never publish his name; just refer to him as “the shooter”, or “the terrorist”.
The instances of death that were able to be caught on film were rare and unusual even with the large number of press in Vietnam. I can send you to pages including ones that stream on Facebook in the open where you can see hundreds of people being killed in the middle east from the various conflicts within the last decade or so. ISIS loves filming themselves and they think showing their glorious deaths is a good recruiting tool. With the abundance of cameras and video all over the world including in war zones violent death has been documented more now than at any time. It doesn’t shock like it used to.
I voted other because it really can’t be censored. I have no problem with individual companies deciding to ban it from their platforms. I have no problem with all major platforms banning it. But it’s on the Internet forever and extraordinary measures to try to eradicate it (like making it illegal) should not be done.
I’m divided on this issue but not because it risks to create copycats. Mainly, my problem is the privacy of the victims.
I agree with these two (and the others that have echoed similar sentiments). I doubt trying to use it as a tool to show “what guns are capable of, up close and personal” is going to go over very well with the general public, mostly because of the lack of respect for the victims.
IMO that’s different because the decision to be involved in the war was one made by the body politic, members of which were viewing the coverage. Ending the war was as simple as changing public policy.
As much as some people, I think often with good intentions, would like to believe that terrorism/mass shootings can be ended with some simple change in public policy (or various sometimes conflicting changes various people believe would do this), they can’t be. They are fundamentally individual acts. National involvement in a war is a fundamentally society-collective act. IOW the issue in seeing ugly coverage of national wars is not viewers copying it by starting their own national wars, but the potential of individuals being inspired to copy individual/small group terror is a serious issue.
Besides that basic difference I think one could debate at book length the potential downsides of media coverage of wars. I believe it’s grossly oversimplified to believe that simply shocking the public with disturbing images of war is always beneficial. Would shocking the US public with gory images to bring about opposition to WWII have been obviously good for US society?
OTOH as Loach pointed out, not a lot of Vietnam TV coverage was actually death and gore per se, though some particularly well remembered clips were. And I think you have give the public some credit for paying attention to more relevant aspects of the coverage, like the degree to which South Vietnamese society was really on its govt’s side, how worthy an ally that govt and the ARVN were and so forth. And again in contrast to the ample room for reasonable debate about the media’s coverage of wars, there’s no reasonable debate whether the manifesto’s of mass killers or their own videos of their acts are responsible or balanced. Especially this particular NZ one seems to have reached a new height of deliberate and evilly clever trolling with the manifesto.
I agree with other posts that there’s an ambiguity about ‘censorship’. But I took it to mean, should a particular ostensibly responsible company, say Facebook, remove content like this or leave it alone. Remove it, IMO, so I answered accordingly. There isn’t actually an issue in the US at least at this time whether the govt should or would try to remove it, they don’t and can’t. And also obviously just because major responsible companies remove it doesn’t mean it’s going to be 100% removed from the internet. That doesn’t itself answer for them the question whether they should remove it from their platform insofar as they can.
Let me just ask one thing. If it was members of your own family who were killed in that video, would you want the video to be public?
In theory I would. I’d be so angry that I’d want the world to see what these &$%#! gun laws had done to my child/spouse/sibling/parent/etc…but it’s hard to know how I’d really feel if that situation was my reality.
Terrible analogy, but I didn’t get into animal rescue/rights until I saw (on my tv) how factory farms mistreated animals. A picture paints a thousand words.
Of course without going through it I wouldn’t know for sure.
I wouldn’t want to see it myself. I would be happy if places like Facebook banned because I use that and I wouldn’t want it coming up on my feed. I think I would have more in my mind than worrying about if some random guy in Des Moines got to see it after he seeked it out. I think my opinion would be the same. Companies could ban it if they wanted to but the government shouldn’t get involved and it shouldn’t be criminalized.
There is video of one of my family members being murdered. Billions of people have watched it from multiple angles. I know people don’t think about 911 in the same way because you can’t see the bodies as they die but that’s how it is for a lot of people who lost loved ones.