Jumari brought up a great point in class: Twitter and Facebook are not the first media outlets, therefore they cannot be blamed for crime. Flanagan certainly wanted infamous attention, for reasons most cannot comprehend, but his predecessors could write letters to newspapers, call or fax in threats, find SOME means of making their crime known, etc. The latest social media makes self-promotion easy, but it is not accurate to say it insights crime of this nature.
There are a variety of opinions about Roanoke: we debate if graphic content should be shown, and if so, how often? We debate how we would like to be remembered, famous for our death caught on tape or sugarcoated in a peaceful obituary. We debate the extent of freedom of speech: what is the difference between a dumbass troll and an authentic threat? Something we are not addressing is easy gun access and the American mass shooting epidemic.
Though Flanagan targeted two people he knew, he claimed he admired the Virginia Tech shooter, saying, "That's my boy right there." There have been ample amounts of mass shootings since Columbine; copycat crime? Perhaps. Easy accessibility to the legal purchase of guns, improper background checks, mental illness under the radar? Probably.
Our classroom discussion, as well as the discussions sweeping the nation, are insightful: but often we talk about what is easy to talk about: "Hey, we should remember the victims instead of focusing on this bastard!" Okay, I agree: I am sensitive to the unexpected loss of innocent life; but these losses will continue if we do not say what is hard to say when these incidents arise (often). A disproportionate amount of homicides will continue in the United States if we fail to address HOW these people are dying: people pull triggers, but guns kill people.
No comments:
Post a Comment