http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/09/how-should-the-news-media-cover-mass-shooters/taking-a-different-ethical-approach-in-the-media-coverage-of-mass-shooters
This debate article by Mark Follman discusses whether or not media outlets should publicly report the names of mass shooters after a shooting. The author argues that although these news outlets have every right to do so, there is forensic evidence that mass shooters of today will try and act in a similar manner to other famous mass shooters in the past, and by withholding information about these shooters, it is possible that we can reduce the number of mass shootings in the future. Publishing many of these shooters manifestos online for anyone to read can be a dangerous thing. Although the majority of people will read them and be disgusted, it is possible that it could inspire one person to be the next killer.
The issue of restricting media reminded me of Rousseau's thoughts on the general will and how much freedom the media and the public should have in scenarios like this, especially with the high amount of mass shootings that occur in the Unites States each year. The public may demand to know information about the shooter, but is it in their best interest if it may put them in danger in the future? Follman admits that it is likely impossible that the media will restrict all information about these mass shooters, but this still raises the question of whether or not freedom of press will be jeopardized if the media chooses to withhold information. People may demand that the media give us more information on the shooters, but I believe that this is an example where the common interest of the community is more important that the rights of the individual. If shifting focus away from the names and manifestos of mass shooters could prevent killings in the future, I think it is worth it.
Two questions:
ReplyDelete1) How might this be enforced? It only takes one organization to publish names for the enterprise to be comprised.
2) Where should the line on limiting speech be? Is there a slippery slope here?
To answer your first question, I believe that limiting it to most major news outlets would be effective enough. Obviously it would be oppressive (and a waste of time) to silence every single media outlet. I think either way some people will find out names, but if organizations like the NY Times, CNN, Fox news, etc did not publish the names it would not be as widespread.
DeleteAs for the second question, I think that limiting speech would only be acceptable if it is for the better in protecting the citizens of the US. Otherwise, media should have the freedom to report on what they want.
This is a very hard topic because it seems that two of our desired rights our in opposition. We have our first amendment right to freedom of speech, but we also have to consider the right to feel safe and secure and have the government to help ensure that. Although these two rights are in contradiction, I agree with Sammy and believe that public safety should trump the right to free speech/freedom of the press.
ReplyDeleteThis is hard for me. I think the only way we can know this is by stats. Yes it may be true that less killings will occur but what if this is also a way to hide important information fro citizens that may be beneficial to know. I think allowing people not to know too much about a person may result in the government making sure that they have a greater power and control over the citizens.
ReplyDelete