POLL - Should Manifestos Be Published?

[NowISeetheLight]

I just read the Jacksonville killer had left a manifesto full of "I hate blacks" racist hate.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/jacksonville-mass-shooting-racially-motivated-b2400270.html

Honestly I'd like to read it. I can't even imagine what it's like. I read the Unabomber manifesto years ago online (I was curious). Of course I can see past the conspiracy theory garbage. I also think most people would be offended by some of this racist garbage.

But then I think there are so many weak minded people who could actually believe the crap.

Poll Question:

Should manifestos left by killers be published?

28 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	YES
	11 (39%)
	NO
	17 (61%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[treestar]

1. not if they know who the shooter was

with the Unabomber, it helped find him.

Though a shooter who did not suicide would be tried, and if the manifesto helped prove his guilt, it would have to go into evidence.

[Wingus Dingus]

2. I'm going to say no. Maybe they have to be made public in court, but

I don't see the point of media publishing them. It's granting their final evil wish (if they died)--why do that?

[Yonnie3]

3. I feel like it would encourage others

It would send a message to kill some people and then your manifesto will get published.

Some selected snippets for release would be sufficient for the needs of the public.

[brush]

4. These lone-wolf killers are the result of trump pushing racism.

[RKP5637]

5. I have mixed feelings on this one. It does give an alert to watch whomever. But then you

know someone is probably reading it thinking, hey, this is great stuff.

[Sympthsical]

6. Many people spoke out against the Memphis shooter's manifesto being released

And to date it hasn't been. It'll be interesting to watch how quickly some minds change.

I'm against it across the board. It encourages acts as a way of garnering attention. They want it distributed. They want it read. They envision people being rapt at the amazingly insightful and trenchant societal analysis they've managed. Why should we be in the business of giving them what they want? I've never read a mass shooter's reasoning and thought, "Well, now that they've laid it all out like that, I've changed my mind. They were completely justified!" So the question becomes, what purpose does it serve? Learning? We know what a lot of mass shooters think. Who's being educated? Politics? If it's politics, then release them all.

The people who need to read it - law enforcement, the families, mental health professionals, etc. - will read it.

I see no purpose served in general public release. It'll just end up a football people start throwing around social media, and social media are too stupid to manage a Tuesday without commentary, much less issues like this.

[WarGamer]

14. The Gov't should never hide anything from the public...

Absent some national security implications...

Memphis shooter manifesto should have been released. This cretins manifesto should be released also.

Government, State or Federal should NEVER be in the business of crafting social narrative.

[Sympthsical]

18. Well, either way has to be uniform across the board

Or it will look like government is crafting narrative.

I see no value in it. We are not privy to every detail and piece of evidence of every crime. Most of the time we only ever see what is produced at trial. Government need only prove guilt. I think, in these cases, guilt is pretty established.

Think of various deaths around the country. Law enforcement has photos of all kinds of things. Do we need to see all that?

We do not. There is no value in it, IMO.

[NowISeetheLight]

7. My Thinking

I guess my thinking is yes and no. I'd really like to know if a manifesto was promoting stuff like "President Trump said xxx and he's right". I'd like the hate promoters exposed. But the other stuff like the irrational reasoning they're using wouldn't be good to disseminate.

[Blue Owl]

8. If the author wants to pay for it out of their own pocket

Otherwise NO -- fuck your manifesto...

[Blues Heron]

9. No. Read some poetry instead?

[Azathoth]

10. They should be made available. Not publicized or published.

The public have a right to see the evidence unless it is part of an active criminal prosecution. The government does not and should not have the right to arbitrarily conceal information simply to protect our delicate sensibilities.

With that said, making something available and splashing it across front pages and cable news channels and bookshelves are two different things. The info should be available to those who choose to seek it out, not offered up for tabloid ratings.

[LAS14]

23. Once it's "made available," it will be "splashed across front pages." nt

[Think. Again.]

11. I agree with Azathoth...

...in reply#10.

I feel that any manifesto itself should be freely available to the public, but I don't think that means it would have to be published in any media.

Perhaps various Social Sciences educational institutions could add them to their publicly available collections to keep any official government responsibility out of it.

And of course, as public information, there should be no restrictions (or censorship) on whatever individual private media sources are allowed to publish as they see fit.

But again, they should not be forcibly published as the unabomber's was, unless there is some legit reason, like there was in the unabomber investigation.

[NowISeetheLight]

13. Good Idea

I guess I was thinking "available" when I made the poll.

[Johnny2X2X]

12. I voted yes

I think it’s important for the public to know what hateful rhetoric leads to. There’s little doubt Thai scumbag had all the Rightwing talking points down.

[William769]

15. I had to vote yes.

Free speach is free speech.

If you don't like what's being said, make the case against.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

20. The gunman wrote and shared his thoughts. That speech is already free; it does not need to be

published.

[William769]

21. Appearently we disagree on many things.

I stand by what I said.

[struggle4progress]

16. Why? So we get more murder-suicides by self-imagined geniuses

who believe that all the folk who read their crazy-ass ramblings will be inspired to start a race war?

[MyNameIsJonas]

17. Delayed publication maybe - but not right after the shootings.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

19. "Honestly I'd like to read it." Why?

[NowISeetheLight]

24. Comprehend

I know these people are irrational. I guess it helps me understand WHY the did what they did. Its easy to blame one thing like racism, but I'd like to see the underlying cause. What motivated them. I'd like that motivation exposed.

An AP article about the shooting said this about his writing:

He texted his father during the shooting and told him to break into his room, Waters said. The father then found a suicide note, a will and the racist writings Waters described as “quite frankly, the diary of a madman.”

“He was just completely irrational,” Waters said. “But with irrational thoughts, he knew what he was doing. He was 100% lucid.”

What were the irrational thoughts and what encouraged them? For example, did he write he watched hours of Faux News and was afraid of White Replacement Theory? Did he write he was a supporter of "Good people on both sides" or quote Trump?

I guess I'm always curious. Whether it's the reason we exist or something menial.

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day. Never lose a holy curiosity. ... Don't stop to marvel.

Albert Einstein

[canetoad]

22. No, because

They are usually self-absorbed, selfish, resentful and persecuted piles of BS. If they contain anything of interest I'd be happy for a responsible journalist to write a short summary.

[ForgedCrank]

25. No, and

I'll go so far as to say it should be illegal to publish their names, photos, history, etc. Nothing should be known about them or anything.
On of the reasons this is still happening is that ill people want to be famous and go out shocking as many people as they can.
Take that away from them. Let them die or go to prison as a no-name, to be forgotten tomorrow.

[NowISeetheLight]

26. Kind of Agree

Reminds me of a Criminal Minds episode. "PLAIN SIGHT". In the episode a killer is finally cornered by Agent Gideon. He threatens to make him anonymous and loock him up as an unknown unless the guy releases a hostage. If he does he will make sure everyone knows his name. The guy is so obsessed with publicity he releases her.

https://criminalminds.fandom.com/wiki/Franklin_Graney

[RainCaster]

27. Hell no - these terrorists get too much notoriety already

Let's not give them anymore publicity.

[Wednesdays]

29. Maybe. But not until after a long cooling-off period.

Ten years or so.

[Dr. Strange]

30. I'd say no.

I can almost go either way, but I agree with Sympthsical that it needs to be consistent (since otherwise it looks like the government is deciding what we get to see).

But I lean against it because then it allows the writer to put in stupid things to distract us. (Like the Christchurch shooter talking about pewdiepie.)