I think it's a more nuanced concept than simply banning people from talking about a crime. It's more about not glorifying murder-suicide.
The claim was made that simply discussing the facts of the case in the media increases publicity and notoriety. That certain facts (although it is still unclear which ones) should not be discussed in the media at all because those facts are "dangerous."
What we do on true crime forums is discuss the facts of the case, often past the point where the general public has largely stopped paying attention. We also create a market for the media covering these cases, by reading and sharing articles, etc. Therefore if anyone is giving the media an impetus to keep covering the case, it is people like us. Sorry but that is just a fact.
For example, if these teens had been caught just before they pulled the trigger, their crimes and motives would have been presented by the prosecution in the context of a trial, where they would have been found guilty and received a very harsh sentence.
Those aren't the criminals who are admired and imitated: it's the ones who 'get away with it', either by escaping, hiding their crime so successfully they can't be prosecuted, or choosing suicide.
Many imprisoned criminals have admirers. There are entire online fandoms dedicated to obsessing over various criminals in prison, writing them letters, etc. I was reading the other day that even Nikolas Cruz has an online fandom...now that truly just baffles me, but...apparently this is a thing. Apparently his brother gets tons of messages on Instagram from admirers fawning over Nikolas Cruz and him by extension (which he ignores).
And if we're talking about criminals in general, not just mass/spree killers, there are definitely tons of criminals who are/were imprisoned and have a fandom...Charles Manson and Ted Bundy, anyone? Or for the more ideologically inclined, Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber have their share of fans to this day. Etc. You can even buy t-shirts with Manson's face on them, so I've heard.
Also, the main concern is dramatic headlines and endless TV coverage about the attacker, showing the manifesto and specific details in a way that promotes how clever, bold and daring they were.
Ok, so...where do we draw the line? What is the incorrect amount of facts to release that will create copycat killers? Every single one of us is going to have a different interpretation of where the line should be, and I don't think we'll ever agree on that.
But if certain members of the public are
that concerned about it, and think that the risks or drawbacks of discussing and publicizing the case outweigh the benefits, I don't know why they're discussing the case at all. It seems to me that their behavior is contradictory to their philosophies. Like, why risk creating copycats, or giving these guys publicity?
Especially if certain people don't think it's even possible for anything at all to be gained, in terms of greater understanding of how to prevent these crimes or notice warning signs, by discussing these cases openly. Then what is their impetus for continuing to discuss it? What are they getting out of it? What do they think society is getting out of it?
It seems a very sensible decision to not release or discuss the self-made video manifesto, created by the killers for the sole purpose of gratifying their egos, in the belief that the manifesto would live forever on Youtube and receive millions of hits.
And yet it was discussed in the report, and in the media by extension, and by all of us on here in detail. And in fact, it was arguably discussed more than it would have been if we saw it, because we spent a lot of time speculating on how they said things, what it meant when they said x and y, what their demeanor was like, what "identification behavior" they were displaying, whether they said other things that weren't mentioned in the report, etc.
So again...where is the line?
Also, we have no idea if they created the manifesto with the belief that it would be released on Youtube. You would think the easier thing to do, if that was their goal, would be to record it before they went into the woods and upload it on Youtube themselves. But they didn't. As far as we know from what has been released, they didn't say anything about everyone seeing the videos or anything like that. So we really have no clue who they expected to see it. If they did any research they would see that the police didn't release the Basement Tapes et al. and therefore should not have expected for their videos to be released either.
@LoisLane @10ofRods
(This stuff isn't necessarily about Kam and Bryer's cases specifically, but more of a general statement about the avenues for prevention of random mass violence.)
I think a big part of it is not just that there are massive looming problems in society -- there have always been massive looming problems in society -- but also that we have a very alienated culture. We don't have strong communities. We have an epidemic of loneliness, according to public health researchers. We have chronic wage stagnation, a lack of opportunity even for people who succeed academically -- even more so for people who don't. Especially in Port Alberni, from what I've heard.
It's very easy for people to be forgotten about and fall through the cracks. It's very easy for people to feel like they are in the face of a vast, faceless, uncaring society, and that nobody
really cares what happens to them. And if you think society doesn't care about you, you're going to not care right back.
And, we do have a mental health crisis. There are huge gaps in treatment. I can tell you from personal experience...I've been trying to get adequate treatment and diagnosis for long-standing mental health issues for months, and I'm actively looking for resources, and there's really just not much out there. 45 minutes a week of therapy is not enough for a lot of people. And that's assuming you even have a good therapist...most people with mental health issues will tell you, there's a lot of bad ones out there.
For this reason, one thing I'm still interested in learning is whether Kam and Bryer had any mental health treatment or diagnoses. And if so, whether the signs were missed. Because if you look at a lot of these mass killers' histories, you can see insufficiencies in the mental health system. Kip Kinkel went to therapy, like, nine times, and his parents then withdrew him because "it seemed like he wasn't depressed anymore"...turns out he was not only still depressed, but also undiagnosed psychotic! From what I've read, Eric Harris' therapist has tons of awful reviews online by former patients. Nikolas Cruz
clearly should have been in long-term inpatient treatment (IMO) after years of terrorizing the neighborhood, torturing animals, having to be patted down for weapons by the school resource officer daily, but...there was just nothing out there. Why not? Mental illness is the biggest problem facing our society IMO, with the biggest economic and social costs...why are we just letting it happen?
