MSNBC article on naming murderers

[Liko81]

Someone at News Corp reads the blogs. Here's an article talking about both sides of the "should school shooters and other mass murderers get media fame?" debate:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22301897/

Of course they also bring in gun control theories:

"In crime prevention you need to focus on issues like safety and security," says Kristy Holtfreter of Florida State University. "For example, making it more difficult to get weapons into a public place — as opposed to something that would have a more negligible effect like not naming the shooter."

The article is talking mostly about a mutual agreement among journalists and journalism companies to provide as little information about the killer as possible. Many here on THR were talking about a law similar to those preventing the media from publishing identifying information about minors or sex crime victims. Either way, there are very logical arguments on both sides; fame is only a part of what drives people like these to commit these heinous acts, and denying them that fame will not diminish other aspects of their desire to kill. It also assumes that mass murderers think rationally, which is a very fallacious generalization. On the other hand, focusing on the victims and not the killer places media attention and public sympathy where it belongs.

 

[MakAttak]

It also assumes that mass murderers think rationally, which is a very fallacious generalization.

Simply because their aim is irrational does not mean they will not ACT rationally in pursuit of that aim.

Case in point: Why do mass murderers choose schools, churches and malls for their attacks? Is that not a rational choice given their irrational goal?

If we refused to ever name these murderers and punished those who did, it would change their goals.

That, however, would infringe upon the first amendment. However, since the reporters don't care about the second and use arguments about how we need to restrict the right to keep and bear arms because it will benefit society, why don't we show them that we can benefit society more if we restrict the right of free speech and a free press?

That is the point I am making when I suggest we censor the press. It is not an honest suggestion, it is illustrative of how people ignore the second amendment but hold the first as sacrosanct.

 

[S4Lee]

If it could save just one life....