This toilet bowl stain masquerading as a human being is selling two volumes of his son’s video-taped confession for $39.95, each.
I’ve not checked out the web site personally - I want to keep my breakfast, thank you - so the story may not be as clear cut as the Rocky Mountain News reports, but if it’s even partially true it’s just leaving me with a desire to abdicate from the same species as this toilet bowl stain.
First off, how can one think that this isn’t taking advantage of the murdered victims for profit?
Secondly, what on earth would make anyone want to publicize the confession of their child to brutal acts of murder?
I don’t have words strong enough to make my views clear. I really wish we had the :pukey: smiley for this.
As repugnant as this story may seem to be on the surface, I don’t really see any victims here. The killer is evidently not getting any money and the only people who would actually buy these things would be shit stains themselves.
I don’t see how the victims’ families are damaged by this any more than victims are damaged when they are exploited by the media to attract an audience for Sprite commercials.
The only real question for me is how did the father get the tapes? If he made them himself, I don’t think there’s anything illegal about it, even though the father himself may be a moral reprobate. I also can’t see many people paying $80 for these two tapes but even if they do, they’re the type of people who deserve to be out 80 bucks.
You don’t? Granted, it is nothing compared to the loss of their loved ones, but I have to think it is hurtful to have the killer’s family making money by sharing lurid details of the killing.
I don’t disagree exactly, but I think the mass media constantly does that anyway. Look what the cable news outlets do with stuff like Laci Peterson. Is this father’s exploitation really any different than CNN’s or Fox’s? If anything, the dad (shitbag though he may be) is at leats being honest about his exploitation. The News media hypocritically pretends that they’re reporting it as “news” or “commentary” when all they’re really doing is wallowing in tragedy to get better ratings.
I gurantee, if CNN or Fox got their hands on a Sott Peterson confession tape, they would play it and they would milk it for as much ad revenue as possible.
Until this shitbag’s father owns CNN or Fox and makes a profit by peddling in the victim’s pain, then I don’t think your comparision holds water. I’m sure the victim’s family sees a huge difference between news organizations (and I use that term lightly for Fox) using the confession and the father of the defendant selling it.
Yeah, Diogenes, I think there could be details in a confession tape that would make anything air-able on Fox look tame by comparison. You don’t see this? There could be elements of torture or sexual assault that the family really, really, would prefer never see the light of day, as opposed to becoming jerk-off material for disturbed voyeurs.
Why not? What difference does it make who’s selling it?
I don’t know that the family sees a difference. A lot of families resent the media exploitation of their loved ones.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying what the father’s doing is morally ok, I’m saying I don’t think it’s legally any different than what the media already does (or morally, for that matter).
I don’t think much of anything is unairable on Fox and I also think if they had an exclusive Scott Peterson confession that they would air the whole thing and double their prices for ad time.
If you see no difference between a news report and the father of the victim making money directly selling videos of the confession, well, there really is no starting point where we could debate this issue.
The only applicable laws that I can think of are Son of Sam laws, which I do not believe reach the father’s moneymaking enterprise, unless he uses the money to support his son. And, again, if you can’t see why news organizations are not sued under the Son of Sam laws, I think there’s really no point in my being here.
Except that in a society where for-profit, capitalist media is the norm, the distinction between “using” and “selling” is, to a considerable extent, broke down.
Like all media organizations, the product that news channels are selling isn’t really news. They are not selling their content to an audience; they are, in a fairly literal sense, selling their audience to their advertisers.
The content and the presentation of the news tends to be guided not by any value inherent in the story itself or in a particular style of journalism, but by whatever will garner a greater audience for the network’s advertisements. And, much as we might love to rag on FOX, this applies to the other news organizations in exactly the same way.
That’s got to be one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever read. I wonder how long before some misguided educator decides to use that in a “scared straight program.” Wonder how long before some tries to make money off a serial killer who’s videotaped himself murdering his victims?
You may want to swallow your visceral reaction to Fox and look at it logically. Fox still has to comply to FCC standards. I’m not going to indulge in hypothetical gory details to make my point, but you can use your imagination.
Also, I would not be so certain that what ends up as the father’s assets could not end up as defense fees. I don’t know the legality, but I don’t like it one bit.
I understand that “big media” makes money. I understand that they do this, oftentimes, with sensationalistic reports of atrocities. I understand that “the media” make some of their money off of the pain of victim’s families.
I understand these points, just as New York understood those points when they first enacted Son of Sam laws. The crucial difference, legally, and in part morally, is who is profiting from the sales. The father of the killer or Rupert Murdoch. That difference does certainly make a huge difference in the legality and morality of the action. Neither is a winner, but one case is worse than the other.
This is news? Smokinggun has been posting police interview transcripts for some time now. How is this any different? Because they’re charging money for it? Because it really happened?
Well, you say “the legality and the morality.” I’m happy to accept that we might differ on the subjective moral issue, but i’d be interested to know if you have any evidence that there is, in fact, a legal distinction here. IIRC, the “Son of Sam” law applied directly to the criminal. You yourself said that you don’t think this law applies to the father.
Also, you post raises another question: why should we single out the father? I mean, do we hold him responsible for the actions of his son? And if not, then why should he be treated differently from any other person who happens to get their hands on a copy of the video? Would this be different if some random stranger were selling the DVDs in exactly the same way?
My point was that the law recognizes a difference in who (whom?) is profiting from the actions. If the father is using the proceeds to support his son, there could, in theory, be liability, but there likely would never be any for the media. The law, as well as morality, make a distinction in who is making the profit.
You’re simply arguing degrees of sliminess. If you set your slime scale, son would be at 10, father at, say 8, random stranger at, say 7, big media reporting it, at, about 4. We can keep picking hypotheticals and keep putting them on the scale of slime, but I’m not sure that’s the intent of the OP.
I don’t think the networks actually are “reporting news.” I think they use murder trial porn as a means to attract ratings and increase ad revenues.
And the father of the killer is not the killer. The father is just as innocent as CNN or Court TV. We can’t have separate laws and standards for people who are merely related to criminals. So no, I see no difference between the father exploiting the confession or MSNBC exploiting the confession. I’m not saying they’re both ok, I’m saying they’re both depraved but both legal.
When did I say news networks should be sued? I thought Son of Sam laws only prevented convicted criminals profitting from their own crimes. They don’t apply to anyone who didn’t commit the crimes, do they?
My position that the father selling the tapes is a form of free pres. He’s providing information for a price. I think only sickos would want that information but a formal confession is public record and the father is as entitled to publish it as anyone else.
So, your continued position is that it would be illegal if the father were passing money to the son, and that because of this the law makes a distinction regarding who receives the proceeds. But this conveniently ignores the fact that, as long as the father isn’t handing money to the son (which we have no proof of either way), the law in fact does not make any distinction.
So the father is more moral reprehensible just because he happens to be a relative? Nice to know that guilt by familial relationship is alive and well.