5 ms·
In this particular case, one of the shooters was still at large. Do you not think the public has a right to information about a dangerous, armed fugitive who ma
by xibalba 5y ago
In this particular case, one of the shooters was still at large. Do you not think the public has a right to information about a dangerous, armed fugitive who may be in their midst? I do.
Take the Boston Marathon bombers. Should the press have remained mum on the identities of the suspects? Now, I'm not saying that these situations are perfectly analogous, but surely you agree that, at some point, the press has an obligation to report imminent danger to the public,no? The question is, where is the line (or is there one at all)? I would argue that the press is duty bound to report just the facts, and all of the facts.
- diffeomorphism 5y agoConsidering stories about mobs trying to lynch innocent people they thought responsible? That seems like a pretty clear "No, the public definiely does not" to me. After they are convicted, maybe.
- xibalba 5y agoThe risk of vigilante mobs was not cited by the Austin-American Statesman. Rather, they claimed a risk of "perpetuating stereotypes". Secondarily, claiming that there is a risk of vigilante mob justice is absurd. If you think I'm wrong, please point me to a credible source which reports on an instance of vigilante mob justice in the United States from the last 30 years.
- diffeomorphism 5y agoThe exact case we were discussing for example: https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2r3d54/what_happened_with_reddit_and_the_boston_marathon/ https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2r3d54/what_h...