VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:57:34 02/12/02 Tue
Author: Wakener
Subject: Re: Boston Public Copycat "Bomber" (Anthony Ward haters READ!)
In reply to: Dave 's message, "Re: Boston Public Copycat "Bomber" (Anthony Ward haters READ!)" on 19:27:11 02/09/02 Sat

>
>Yo yo yo yo yo yo yo. Wasn't what i meant..if he was
>inclined to do something like that he could have
>derived his inspiration from anywhere...BP just
>happened to be where this guy got it...in your
>argument, we should get rid of the nightly news
>because they talk about issues that others could draw
>inspiration from. Or even Hollywood for the movies
>they create.

First of all...not *my* argument. I thionk I've made my position clear. I don't think the creator of a TV show should be held responsible for the free will activities of people who watch his show. Secondly...The kind of logic that would hold the innocent responsible because their creation was a factor could very well call for a few monkey wrenches thrown into the Hollywood machine.
>
>>It's easy to say that the innocent should be punished
>>for their thoughts when it's a fictional character you
>>are dealing with--not so easy when you are talking
>>about an innocent's thoughts (read: David E. Kelley)
>>in real life.
>
>It's easy when an "innocent" person's thoughts convey
>a threat. I am not saying hang the person from the
>nearest yardarm, I am saying take necessary measures
>to determine the validity of the threat. If you can't
>determine it, err on caution.

That wasn't the case with Ward. Remember, there was no threat proven...he was transferred because the *lack* of a threat was *not* proven to the satisfaction of the administrators. He had a perfectly reasonable explanation for everything he wrote, and he never said that he would do anything to anyone--ever. In the Akron case, we see that BP is a definite, confirmed contributing factor to this entire definitely threatening situation. Would something else have been otherwise? We don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But if we cannot determine for certain, we can only deal with what we do have. If we are to err on the side of caution, that would demand removing all known elements which contributed to the threat. That would include the kid, and that would include the TV show.
>
>
>Neither did I. David Kelley did not carry out the
>act...he is not responsible in any way shape or
>form...again...it doesn't matter where a person gets
>their inspiration...they alone are responsible for
>their actions...and yes...that includes someone who
>articulates a threat whether they mean it or not

We know of one kid who was inspired by the show...how many others do we not know about? All we know is that the show is inspiring unstable kids to threatening behavior. Again...if you are going to *err on the side of caution,* which is what was originally stated as a good policy way back in the initial discussion at the time of the Ward storyline, it is clear that to be on the safe side, this influence must be sacrificed. Now, one could leave the show on...but that would not be erring on the side of caution (it would just be plain horse sense--as we agree, Kelley did nothing here in Akron). But...that leaves an inconsistency. Since Ward made no direct threats, but people merely interpreted what he did as threatening, why do we err on the side of caution with him, but not with the show? Both can be perceived to constitute a threatening presence, and neither can be proven to be one. Why does one get the benefit of the doubt, and not the other?
>
>>Funny how those "at all cost" principles seem to
>>change when something you happen to like is
>>threatened. And pity that a television show seems to
>>have more value than freedom of thought.
>
>My thoughts aren't changing at all...you are just
>pulling a "Saleem" and arguing with no basis.

No basis? No basis? The kid *said* BP was his inspiration! That brings it into the picture! I'm just saying that a legitimate question someone could ask is "why's it in the picture?" If it has a connection to the incident, which it does, erring on the side of caution demands it be dealt with accordingly. Last year, someone sent an electronic device in the mail to an office at the Akron Federal building. Turned out to be completely harmless--a phone, IIRC, but they evacuated the building, called in the bomb squad, hosed down the package, and ruined the device even before they knew what it was. Erring on the side of caution, despite absolutely no threat being attached to the package, phoned into the building, mailed to the intended recipient, etc. And yes, this was long before September, even. Was it reasonable for them to do this? Well, BP is the television equivalent of that package. Something that can be perceived as part of a threatening situation, whether it is, in fact, or not.

I'm not the one who said err on the side of caution, here--I'm the one who said punish the guilty harshly, quickly, and publicly...but don't punish the innocent because of what one thinks they might have been thinking. Don't "err on the side of caution." Don't err.

A
>television show has value only to the point that it
>continues to pull good enough ratings to charge
>advertisers that want to peddle their products.
>Freedom of thought does not carry over to threatening
>messages. Check the law Wakener.

This is a question of whether or not the show actually had any part whatsoever in the kid's deciding to do what he did, not the legal culpability of Kelley. I don't think Kelley is culpable. I've said that several times. The Ward character didn't threaten any of the other characters--they just "felt like" he did. I've said *that* several times.

And this entire incident demonstrates that TV shows don't only pull ratings. What are ratings important for? They let advertisers know where to put thier commercials. What are commercials? Television messages intended to induce viewers to do certain things. Can a television message inspire a person to do something that he sees someone do on the screen? Beau coup bucks from the advertisers would seem to say yes. Buy chips...buy a car...buy lacy underalls from Victoria's Secret...but then, how many of us watch TV for the commercials? Don't we pay closer attention to the shows? Is it so unreasonable to think that the content of something we are watching closely can inspire someone to do something...when it is accepted that something we don't watch as closely *definitely* does? A fortiori.
>
>>Great--we now know that BP is, however
>>unintentionally, one cause of credible threats. As I
>>said before, using the same logic that supported
>>transferring Ward, erring on the side of caution
>>demands that BP be cancelled in order to safeguard
>>possibly threatened children. Not my logic--yours.
>
>No...seems to be your logic alone...I am not speaking
>of fictional situations and you seem to be.

I've already said what *I* think several times. I am speaking of a discontinuity in logic as applied to one fictional situation--Ward, and one actual situation--the Akron kid inspired by the TV show. If a policy of "hypercautionism" is to be adopted, all three must go, not one, not two. If a policy of punishing people for what they do--not what they thought, and not what someone thinks they thought, then only the Akron kid should go--not the TV show, and not the fictional student. But there isn't a consistent hypercautionist position which allows for both the real and the made-up kid to be removed without also advocating the removal of the TV show (at least, in the Akron area, where the locus of the real-life threat was. That other unstable kids nationwide might be inspired to similar acts is possible, but has not been stipulated, nor has it been demonstrated in any headlines of which I am aware).

It is the
>threat...not the inspiration of that threat that I
>have issue with.

Ahhh...but a) in the fictional scenario, Anthony Ward didn't make any actual threats, so in that situation, it could not possibly be the threat with which you were concerned. Someone...or two...just *thought* it seemed threatening, and b) it could easily be argued that the inspiration of the threat is an integral part of th threat--and thus constitutes a threat in and of itself. Example: If you lived next door to someone who you knew believed in the same kind of radical extreme Islam which has inspired so much violence throughout the world, would you feel *completely* comfortable *even if that neighbor never, ever said a cross word to you or personally threatened you or your property in any way?* You *know* that he believes it...but he has never acted or spoken in a threatening manner. You would have absolutely *no* concerns over the belief system which has inspired others to commit atrocities?

We would close down half the world
>if we went with your logic...including this forum.
>Now..are you just doing this to inspire conversation
>or do you really think this?

How many times do I have to say that it's not *my* logic before you read it? It's the logic of the people who say err on the side of caution. I said at the beginning that someone with that logic has to be inconsistent when applying it to this real-life situation. And I said that my position--the position that I took back when the Ward storyline was being discussed--doesn't have to change a whit to get the resolution to the Akron situation you and I have both stated makes sense.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-4
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.