4 ms·

>After all, we know that this will save lives. There are lots of things that we know will save lives. Banning driving of all non-emergency vehicles. Banning vi

by yucky 4y ago

>After all, we know that this will save lives. There are lots of things that we know will save lives. Banning driving of all non-emergency vehicles. Banning vices and handing out 50 year prison sentences for any violation. Banning skydiving. Banning soda. We can make a very long list of things we can do to save lives. But there is a price to pay, and that price isn't worth it. Banning free speech and the free flow of information is not a price worth paying.

dmix 4y ago
Do we in fact know that if a few big news orgs dont mention the shooters names that it will motivate them to not do it? I doubt you could ever control such a thing even if you tried (Wikipedia will have to have so it's just one more step to google it). Plus the shooters often care about change via harming their targets (creating fear in a particular group is what makes something a hate crime or terroism) which happens regardless if their actual name is published.
- giantg2 4y ago
  There's evidence in the linked study as well as in anecdotal admissions by some perpetrators (eg Columbine murders expected mass coverage and hoped that it would inspire others). Is there any evidence to refute this?
  - dmix 4y ago
    I was talking specifically about naming the perpetrator, not that news coverage might create copycats: > the [FBI] developed the “Don’t Name Them” campaign. The campaign aims to curb media-induced imitational mass shootings and suggests minimizing naming and describing the individuals involved in mass shootings, limiting sensationalism, and refusing to broadcast shooter statements or videos. This sort of thing comes up every time there's a mass shooting, commenters attack the media for naming the person. My point is that even if the media on non-specific about the names/motives those details will come out somewhere and people will find it if they want to. Trying to control specific information is a fools game. The one actual study they reference is how imitation suicides increased with coverage (ie subway jumpers -> more suicides via subway jumpers). https://sci-hub.st/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13811119808258290 https://sci-hub.st/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.10... I do believe reducing the volume of coverage could certainly have an effect. Wall-to-wall coverage makes these acts notorious and puts the ideas into peoples minds. If there is going to be reporting on it avoiding biographic details on the perp won't make much difference. Plus I really doubt the main motivation of most of these shooters is to be personally named, rather they want maximum impact for their crimes. They know the specific details will spread via other channels regardless, all it needs is the original seed in the media about the general crime.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      I believe part of it is the volume providing ideas. But it still seems that a lot of it is about infamy, as referenced in the FBI link as well as these attacks. I think that while the volume provides the idea, the infamy is the "benefit" that the killer sees in that idea. It's possible that without that benefit, they might kill themselves instead of others. Not an ideal outcome, but certainly a better one. 'The Sandy Hook murderer kept a spreadsheet of previous mass murderers and their number of kills. The WDBJ murderer killed his victims while they were on the air! And then faxed his 23-page manifesto to ABC News. The Orlando Pulse nightclub murderer called a local news station during his attack! And then stopped to check Facebook to see if he'd gone viral. The Parkland murderer recorded and posted a video, stating, "When you see me on the news, you'll know who I am." The Aurora theater murderer told a psychiatrist that he recognized he couldn't make an impact on the world in science, but he could become famous by blowing people up. And most telling, the Umpqua Community College murderer wrote on his blog about a previous mass murderer, saying, "I've noticed that people like him are all alone and unknown. But when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are."' TED Talk by Tom Teves.
giantg2 4y ago
I agree that there are many things that we could do, and that there are costs associated with them. "Banning free speech and the free flow of information is not a price worth paying." I generally agree with this, but what harm is done by banning the media from using the name of a criminal likely to be notorious (mass murder, assassination, etc)?
- radford-neal 4y ago
  Well, for starters, it would mean that members of the public who had interacted with the murderer, and had important information about their motives, means of obtaining weapons, accomplices, etc. would not realize that they had important information, and therefore would not make this information available to investigators. Next, it would mean that powerful interests who had responsibility for the crime, by instigation or negligence, might be able to avoid accountability for their actions/omissions, since people would not be able to connect them to the murderer. Then there's the inability of the public to see what aspects of current culture might have lead to the crime, or what deficiencies in mental health care contributed, etc. Democracy is based on the belief that ordinary people can be trusted to know the truth, and use it in governing themselves. Perhaps you don't believe that, and are just against democracy?
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "and therefore would not make this information available to investigators." I find it unlikely that investigators would not be able to find those connections themselves, especially in the digital age. "Next, it would mean that powerful interests who had responsibility for the crime, by instigation or negligence, might be able to avoid accountability for their actions/omissions, since people would not be able to connect them to the murderer." How so? The media could still report on groups instigating the crime without naming the person committing it. "Democracy is based on the belief that ordinary people can be trusted to know the truth, and use it in governing themselves. Perhaps you don't believe that, and are just against democracy?" Don't troll, it's against the rules. Our democracy has had restriction on speech throughout its history, and has added others. Withholding the name has no impact on how ordinary people will make decisions since it's not pertinent to the underlying issued which could be described through impersonal means (talk about the actual mental illness you mentioned and not the specific person).

by yucky 4y ago

dmix 4y ago

Do we in fact know that if a few big news orgs dont mention the shooters names that it will motivate them to not do it? I doubt you could ever control such a thing even if you tried (Wikipedia will have to have so it's just one more step to google it). Plus the shooters often care about change via harming their targets (creating fear in a particular group is what makes something a hate crime or terroism) which happens regardless if their actual name is published.

giantg2 4y ago
There's evidence in the linked study as well as in anecdotal admissions by some perpetrators (eg Columbine murders expected mass coverage and hoped that it would inspire others). Is there any evidence to refute this?
- dmix 4y ago
  I was talking specifically about naming the perpetrator, not that news coverage might create copycats: > the [FBI] developed the “Don’t Name Them” campaign. The campaign aims to curb media-induced imitational mass shootings and suggests minimizing naming and describing the individuals involved in mass shootings, limiting sensationalism, and refusing to broadcast shooter statements or videos. This sort of thing comes up every time there's a mass shooting, commenters attack the media for naming the person. My point is that even if the media on non-specific about the names/motives those details will come out somewhere and people will find it if they want to. Trying to control specific information is a fools game. The one actual study they reference is how imitation suicides increased with coverage (ie subway jumpers -> more suicides via subway jumpers). https://sci-hub.st/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13811119808258290 https://sci-hub.st/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.10... I do believe reducing the volume of coverage could certainly have an effect. Wall-to-wall coverage makes these acts notorious and puts the ideas into peoples minds. If there is going to be reporting on it avoiding biographic details on the perp won't make much difference. Plus I really doubt the main motivation of most of these shooters is to be personally named, rather they want maximum impact for their crimes. They know the specific details will spread via other channels regardless, all it needs is the original seed in the media about the general crime.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I believe part of it is the volume providing ideas. But it still seems that a lot of it is about infamy, as referenced in the FBI link as well as these attacks. I think that while the volume provides the idea, the infamy is the "benefit" that the killer sees in that idea. It's possible that without that benefit, they might kill themselves instead of others. Not an ideal outcome, but certainly a better one. 'The Sandy Hook murderer kept a spreadsheet of previous mass murderers and their number of kills. The WDBJ murderer killed his victims while they were on the air! And then faxed his 23-page manifesto to ABC News. The Orlando Pulse nightclub murderer called a local news station during his attack! And then stopped to check Facebook to see if he'd gone viral. The Parkland murderer recorded and posted a video, stating, "When you see me on the news, you'll know who I am." The Aurora theater murderer told a psychiatrist that he recognized he couldn't make an impact on the world in science, but he could become famous by blowing people up. And most telling, the Umpqua Community College murderer wrote on his blog about a previous mass murderer, saying, "I've noticed that people like him are all alone and unknown. But when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are."' TED Talk by Tom Teves.

giantg2 4y ago

I agree that there are many things that we could do, and that there are costs associated with them. "Banning free speech and the free flow of information is not a price worth paying." I generally agree with this, but what harm is done by banning the media from using the name of a criminal likely to be notorious (mass murder, assassination, etc)?

radford-neal 4y ago
Well, for starters, it would mean that members of the public who had interacted with the murderer, and had important information about their motives, means of obtaining weapons, accomplices, etc. would not realize that they had important information, and therefore would not make this information available to investigators. Next, it would mean that powerful interests who had responsibility for the crime, by instigation or negligence, might be able to avoid accountability for their actions/omissions, since people would not be able to connect them to the murderer. Then there's the inability of the public to see what aspects of current culture might have lead to the crime, or what deficiencies in mental health care contributed, etc. Democracy is based on the belief that ordinary people can be trusted to know the truth, and use it in governing themselves. Perhaps you don't believe that, and are just against democracy?
- giantg2 4y ago
  "and therefore would not make this information available to investigators." I find it unlikely that investigators would not be able to find those connections themselves, especially in the digital age. "Next, it would mean that powerful interests who had responsibility for the crime, by instigation or negligence, might be able to avoid accountability for their actions/omissions, since people would not be able to connect them to the murderer." How so? The media could still report on groups instigating the crime without naming the person committing it. "Democracy is based on the belief that ordinary people can be trusted to know the truth, and use it in governing themselves. Perhaps you don't believe that, and are just against democracy?" Don't troll, it's against the rules. Our democracy has had restriction on speech throughout its history, and has added others. Withholding the name has no impact on how ordinary people will make decisions since it's not pertinent to the underlying issued which could be described through impersonal means (talk about the actual mental illness you mentioned and not the specific person).