“The damage done today is already significant....” said Brent Leatherwood, a parent of three Covenant students.... He called whoever had leaked the photos “a viper” who had allowed someone “who terrorized our family with bullets to be able to now terrorize us with words from the grave.”...
So, the NYT forefronts the parents and the idea that to get information about the criminal's thought process would be to "terrorize" the children. On this theory, we ought to be protected from all hate speech. There should be no news reports of terror attacks. I would have thought the main reason not to publish a criminal's writings would be that the promise of publication might spur on other killers.
Next, the NYT tells us that "right-wing activists" have been interested in the extent to which the criminal's transgender identity had to do with the crime. The suppression of the writings may have heightened this suspicion.
Now that we've seen the excerpts, the motivation seems to have to do with anger at white privilege. The NYT phrases that idea not as something any reader would think, but as something right-wingers — and supposed right-wingers — have "seized on":
On Monday, Senator J.D. Vance, Republican of Ohio, and the billionaire Elon Musk were among those who seized on a mention of white privilege in the published excerpts to argue that the shooter, who was white, was carrying out anti-white violence....
Republicans pounced.
Several news outlets, including The Tennessean; at least one state lawmaker; and gun rights groups sued for the release of the documents after their requests were stonewalled during what police officials said was an ongoing investigation. Republicans and gun rights groups said it was necessary to understand what had led to the shooting as calls for tightened gun laws grew in the months after the shooting.
The unstated corollary: Liberals don't need to know what motivated this particular individual, because they want the focus to be on restricting access to guns. Keep it simple. Make it hard to debate about the things conservatives want in the public discourse.
Lawyers for the news outlets also warned against weakening of public records laws in Tennessee and of infringements on the outlets’ First Amendment rights.
Is the NYT among the news outlets that take this problem seriously?
But the parents of surviving Covenant School students, as well as the school itself and the adjoining church on the campus, asked a judge to allow them to participate in the lawsuit and argue against the release of the writings....
Now, the article gets to what I have worried about, the so-called Columbine effect. Publicity given to the Columbine killers has inspired other "other troubled young people" to take the same route to fame. And with social media, it's so easy for criminals to make their writing available to everyone — including every right-wing blogger — to republish and to interpret and to throw into the political debate about all the right-wing issues of the day, such as transgenderism and bigotry against white people.
But the shooter in Nashville had a limited social media presence, heightening the interest in the writings....
Ah! At this point, I realize the NYT has not only refrained from naming the Nashville shooter, it has refrained from using pronouns. It's "the writings," not "his writings" or "her writings" or "their writings."
The parents of the criminal are named, however. Ronald and Norma Hale come up in the last 2 paragraphs, where we are informed that they have attempted to "to give legal ownership of the writings to the families of the Covenant School students." The writings are part of the evidence in this case, and I can't see how they possess any legal — or moral — authority to determine who gets to see the writings of the dead murderer Audrey Hale.
Posts
87 comments:
Just when you thought the NYT couldn’t be any more ridiculous…
Sunlight is a good thing.
I don't think any reports I've seen have mentioned how much testosterone she was taking.
Has anyone seen this addressed?
John Henry
Audrey Hale’s writings are important because they reveal the poison of both DEI/CRT and transgenderism.
Do we know if Hale had been given drugs? Those drugs are very powerful.
The Left constantly asserts that conservatives are full of hate. But here, we see how she hated little white kids who went to a private school.
You’ve all seen the red-haired Nebraska state Senator who did her trans meltdown on the floor of the Nebraska Unicameral. That video has shown up again on TwitterX in connection with Hale’s manifesto. But she’s blocked the ability to reply. This is contrary to law. I’m thinking about suing her in federal court.
I'm uncurious about the writings. I don't think that's unusual.
The left supplies their own gotcha moments constantly themselves. The problem is that women don't think so. Shouldn't feelings run the world?
”The unstated corollary”
And an unstated implication: the truth helps conservatives, liberals rely on narrative control. Which to the New York Times means the narrative must be carefully protected.
“Now that we can read (some of) the Nashville shooter's writing, can we understand why the parents of surviving students wanted to suppress them permanently?”
No. I read Brent Leatherwood’s comments and I still don’t understand it.
All the news that fits.
"white privilege, kill all you little crackers", hmmmm...wonder where HE got THOSE talking points???
This is so bizarre. Has critical evidence in a mass murder ever been the subject of an ownership battle?
Isn't it funny that the authorities are more upset that this was leaked, than the actual things he wrote?? They will go after the leaker of this a lot harder than they are going after the SCOTUS leaker. Upside down world.
I suspect the NYT and other leftwing outfits would want the manifesto suppressed because they have been complicit in stirring up hatred against Whites and decrying White privilege. I also suspect the emphasis on DEI, intersectionality and other forms of Marxist claptrap have influenced the spread of such hatred. Now, the hatred thus fostered has to be hidden because it is embarrassing and counter to the leftwing victimology narrative, as if their propaganda could produce any different result.
It's really scary how the leftist mind works.
Now, the article gets to what I have worried about, the so-called Columbine effect
I tend to favor the idea of not publishing manifestos or motivations in these scenarios but does anyone fail to recognize the concern of NYT is ‘this one is on ‘our’ side?’ We’d know everything about a right wing not job but this one harms the agenda. Asymmetry…
The writings indicate that hating and discriminating against others on the basis of skin color or perceived identity and not personal character is a route to hatred.
We know that already. But our society has forgotten it. And now permits it towards certain groups. Today it’s whites, Asians, Jews. Who will be next ?
If they don't had released the manifesto earlier, these pages wouldn't be a big deal. It's what everyone suspected. However, there must be more we haven't seen yet. My suspicion? Testosterone.
Is the NYT among the news outlets that take this problem seriously?
Who’s to say the NYT hasn’t had a copy of the manifesto for some time?
It knows lots of things it declines to publish.
The writings were owned by the shooter, and I presume at her age she died intestate. I expect under TN law that her parents are the sole heirs to her estate.
By what mechanism does property seized as evidence by the police - but not used in the commission of the crime and never used to prosecute or entered into evidence at any court proceeding - become the property of the State? Did the State get to keep all the contents of the shooter's pockets?
The $$ found on her bidy or in her car? I didn't practice criminal law but this would be a new one on me.
This is what happens when a political subgroup (lefty totalitarians and autocrats) attempts to implement China-style censorship in a society built on precisely the opposite principles. Cognitive dissonance. Confusion. Those good little soldiers who are dependent on the autocrats just freeze like a deer in the headlights.
Per the malformed and deformed public discourse of our era, they feel "emotional damage": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuMxw8t85SE
1. The shooter was a white-hating trans. All the non-stop anti-white rhetoric and white supremacist BS likely played a role.
2. The authorities wanted to hide this information from the public, because hating white people is a Democrat thing, just like hating Jews.
When something like this happens, the first step should be to take away the firearms of law-abiding people, right? Somehow, I don't think that the confused and demented Audrey would have let the laws get in her way.
I am surprised by the reported attitude of the parents, but their lawyer Leatherwood seems to be saying what the Times reports. It seems to me that these were random victims, so there is nothing personal in Audrey's ravings. She just sucked up too much Ibram X. Kendi (or Henry Rogers--say his name!) and Robin DiAngelo.
Other shooters' manifestos with different agendas seem to make the front page all the time. This one, not so much. But Republicans pounced!
"He called whoever had leaked the photos “a viper” who had allowed someone “who terrorized our family with bullets to be able to now terrorize us with words from the grave.”...
I sympathize with the parent who made this comment, but that doesn't make it any more cogent. How, exactly, did the person who leaked this portion of the manifesto after the fact "allow" the shooter to terrorize his family? And why did the NYT choose to include it without comment? Is it just a crude attempt by the NYT to shift the blame for the murders to someone else - some "rightwing nutjob" to coin a phrase? The only purpose publishing this type of comment serves is to obfuscate the actual reason for the shooter's responsibility for the action, whatever that may be, hence, make it more difficult to determine the real motivation for such a senseless act. The failure to even attempt to understand the shooter's mindset is more of a detriment to preventing such acts in the future than anything the leaker did. Not that the NYT has any intention of determining whether mental illness or drugs taken during the "transition" played any role. The NYT is a truly garbage newspaper.
"I would have thought the main reason not to publish a criminal's writings would be that the promise of publication might spur on other killers."
That has never stopped publication before with other shooters.
I hope the heroic and professional behavior of the Nashville policemen who took out Audrey is not forgotten.
Thank you for this. I read the Times headline (I would never pay a dime to subscribe) and figured it was another skirmish in the culture wars, where the Times needed contorted interpretations to tell their Brooklyn readers what to think. It is not something I have energy or desire to disentangle on my own. I appreciate your saving me the time.
In the overnight cafe thread below I wondered out loud whether the extreme rage evinced by Hale in the writings that leaked were signs that she couldn’t handle the testosterone she was receiving as part of her transition. If she was receiving testosterone (under HIPAA we might not ever have this confirmed) then Hale’s case may point out a risk to the public that doctors need to be aware of. I get that the New York Times is 10,000% behind transitioning and therefore would want to suppress even the slightest suggestion that there are risks to the public. Nevertheless I think most people will agree that the public has a right to know.
The people of Nashville have suffered a terrible tragedy. The parents even more so.
That does not obviate the public's right to information. Keeping secrets only grows and undermines self governance. The issue becomes the people in power making the decision to restrict facts, do so to advance their own power. This is not a left, right think....It is a POWER thing. Transparency must be the order of the day. How does the public understand its community, without getting all the information?
So much for the idea the public has a right to know. I recall Big Media scouring any written evidence to prove allegedly right wing hatred for other mass murderers. And the Nashville mayor showed more anger at the leak yesterday than at the murders when it happened.
"The damage done is already significant"
For you. The "damage is significant" for you, because the truth you wanted to hide from everyone who already knew what it contained has had their suspicions confirmed.
You're trying to prevent a massive cultural war that has already started and can't be prevented. Rainbow jihad is anti-civilizational. It is murderous. It is toxic. It is a weapon. The backlash is forming. It will be severe.
Your pathetic attempts to prevent it only reinforce its necessity. But you know that.
Because the liberal media NEVER rushes to ascribe motivations to culprits in mass shootings.
The "Colombine Effect" is real. A prominent scientist that has studies mass killers has recommended that national news stop the 24/7 coverage, never show the killer's face, never name then, and never mention their manifesto (if there is one). Mention the killing on the news that day, if the person escapes mention the manhunt, mention the arrest, and if there is a trial give out the verdict. For local news, more coverage is OK, but no mention of any manifesto. The idea is to minimize the fame the killer get, since fame is a major motivation for them.
"So, the NYT forefronts the parents and the idea that to get information about the criminal's thought process would be to "terrorize" the children."
---
So are the local parents planning on making sure their children watch the news and read the killer's manifesto so they are "terrorized"? I always found it very easy to keep my children from watching news stories regarding such crimes or reports of a killer's vile though processes. I simply didn't let them watch the news of such events.
I hate it when the left and their media mouthpieces yell "it's for the children" when we all know good and well that has nothing to do with it. What they mean is that the issue goes against their preferred narrative and they would prefer the information be hidden from the public.
In this case, I suspect the constant barrage of stories from the media alleging that "white supremacy" is the cause of all ills contributed to the killer's mindset. I believe a review of all of Hale's writings will support my suspicions and she probably named specific names. The media encouraged Hale to hate herself and everyone else as well. Especially white people--middle class people such as herself. That's why they want to keep the writings from the public.
"By what mechanism does property seized as evidence by the police - but not used in the commission of the crime and never used to prosecute or entered into evidence at any court proceeding - become the property of the State?"
You're confusing the pieces of paper — the chattel — with the copyright. Copyright is property, but publishing this material is so clearly fair use that there is nothing to argue about.
Now, if anyone in Nevada would like to shed some light on the motivation of the Las Vegas strip shooter. For some reason, the FBI has decided we shouldn’t know that guys motivation either.
I can only imagine the pain that those parents that lost children must be going through. I wish that on no parent. That said, if some mentally deranged person murdered my child I would want their manifesto to be made public, and I cannot imagine why any other parent would not want the same.
Another old lawyer said...By what mechanism does property seized as evidence by the police - but not used in the commission of the crime and never used to prosecute or entered into evidence at any court proceeding - become the property of the State?
Assumes facts not in evidence. Do you have reason to believe the manifesto will not be returned to the parents when the investigation is wrapped up? I doubt they want it back, but so far as I am aware, nothing has been said or done to prevent its return.
@Big Mike "signs that she couldn’t handle the testosterone she was receiving as part of her transition."
Current transgender politics is VERY odd, as child/teen transitions were tried on the small scale and largely failed in the 1970s to 1980s. But, lefties apparently said to themselves "if only we can start the transitions before puberty it'll all be great". A new generation of naïve young came along and fell victim to Josef Mengele-like predatory experimentation.
The risks of testosterone and steroids were also explored in the 1970s to 1980s, and shifted from openly prescribed to generally banned. Early Arnold Schwarzenegger publicly discussed his prescribed steroids. Then gyms started to suffer from body-builder 'roid rage. The danger of men overdosing on steroids was fully known. Also see East German women who ended up transitioning without intent, as doctors who played God injected them with steroids and told them they were vitamins.
https://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/11/sexchange.athlete/index.html
IF we All stick our heads in the sand.. We can ALL Pretend that bad things AREN'T happening!
Trans-rage is a protected status.
If you want to Make America Great Again - you will be cancelled and sent to the gulag. Obey.
What is the source of such hatred from a 14 year old? Where did the ideas come from at such a young age that would cause one to actually take steps to murder other random young children - steps that would lead to the forfeit of your own life?
You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught from year to year,
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear—
You’ve got to be carefully taught!
As a Nashvillian, it warms the cockles of my heart to see the NYT bundle up The 'never saw a Republican we did not hate' Tennessean newspaper with Republican lawmakers and gun rights advocates. They must be having a coniption over there. Hahahaha
If this was a right-wing manifesto - it would be plastered.
Trans-rage (which is real) is protected. Why? because the radical left were just getting started with the "Your child is not yours-but instead part of the collective - They/Them" - project. Obey.
Remind me how many clues this freak exhibited before she went on her death spree? What did she say and do, when, as witnessed by whom, with what action by the authorities (mental health, police, FBI, others)?
Let's not ignore the manifesto but IMHO it's unlikely to tell the whole story of how she got to be so murderously sick while the world looked away.
@Amadeus
" She just sucked up too much Ibram X. Kendi (or Henry Rogers--say his name!) and Robin DiAngelo."
You can buy heavy-duty syringes for that crap now.
My name goes here. said...
I can only imagine the pain that those parents that lost children must be going through. I wish that on no parent. That said, if some mentally deranged person murdered my child I would want their manifesto to be made public, and I cannot imagine why any other parent would not want the same.
I'm not a parent, but I assume almost every parent would experience pain in being reminded of their child's murder. That being said I don't know how this release of information can cause more pain than another reminder of their child's death. What if the parents are cleaning out their house later and find an old picture or an old set of clothes. That must hurt as well. I could understand a heightened pain if the manifesto was used as rallying cry for other groups with similar ideology to the murderer, but no one is doing that here. And there is a public interest in knowing what the motivations are of mass shooters like this. And it seems like the government and media cooperate to make sure the motive is disseminated in cases like Buffalo where a white supremacist murdered a lot of black folks in a grocery store, or the Wal-Mart in El Paso, Texas where again a white supremacist murdered people. But in this case they deflected and said something about an ongoing investigation even though it strains credulity that the police were investigating anything beyond a month or two.
Also as long as we are talking about ownership of writings or copyright and permitted use, I wonder if there will be a drive to limit releases like this by creating new Son of Sam-like laws that limit publication of writings of murderers by media, under the theory the media is profiting off it. It would seem like a first amendment violation to me, but I could see the government-media complex liking the ability to limit publications of unfavorable news.
If a subject is being argued from a position of incomplete knowledge or ignorance, then that position is preferred because it is objectively easier to defend. I wonder if at least some of the media has actually had access to the manifesto, and kept it under wraps? Now that a few words have been leaked out - it's not even clear that these few pages are part of the actual 'Manifesto' - now, insights have been gleaned about the mind of the killer. And they are difficult to defend against, because now narratives are now being affected. Sacred oxen are being gored.
The NYT's position is that they would prefer to defend their ideas in an environment where their putative debate opponents are kept in the dark. Maybe that is what I should call, the 'Censor's Privilege', in the same critical spirit as 'White Privilege'.
To understand the motivations of the killer, we have to understand what influences she was acting under - medical, social, psychological, etc. It has to be done in order to help prevent it happening again. If the preference is to not understand the killer by censoring the public debate, then that is sacrificing the public safety to win a narrative argument. Is sympathize with the parents, they should not be made to live through a public drama. But the drama isn't coming from the people that want access to the manifesto.
It does not matter that the manifesto is now public. The same groups pushing narratives for gun control or transphobia will simply continue to do so without regard to any facts, as they have done so far.
Didn't the NYT publish the Unibomber???? I rest my case.
So,
If the parents want the writings suppressed we can take it as a given that the parents have been given access to the writings.
There can be little doubt that the NYT also has access to the writings.
They’ve simply made an editorial decision that the writings are not “fit to print”
You just need to trust them.
"I would have thought the main reason not to publish a criminal's writings would be that the promise of publication might spur on other killers."
As COVID showed us, implementing restrictions and edicts based on "might" ain't all that bright an idea and that suppressing information is deliterious. The imaginary 'might' of spurring on other killers is easily balanced by the imaginary might of the inspiration that suppressing the information might generate in others.
Remember Ted Kaczynski's manifesto? Released: September 19, 1995. Arrested: April 3, 1996.
I don't recall the news sources' concern about replication or influence stopping print.
Outside the context of either national security or a pending criminal case, I see no justification for public officials' being able to keep information under wraps. What is the basis for not releasing it and, in regard to that basis, what are the applicable standards? The fact that someone connected to the crime doesn't want to see it published in the newspaper does not by itself authorize public actors from withholding it. And where would that end -- is it just the victim's parents who get to decide or does the power extend to a step- grandparent? What if some family members object but others are ok with releasing the manifesto to the press?
It's intolerable to have public officials making ad hoc "law" without any basis. Reminds me too much of the covid nonsense.
My name goes here. said...
"I can only imagine the pain that those parents that lost children must be going through. I wish that on no parent. That said, if some mentally deranged person murdered my child I would want their manifesto to be made public, and I cannot imagine why any other parent would not want the same."
Yeah. As a parent I would want to know what the killers motivation was. How she got to that point. Was she drugged up? Was she indoctrinated? Did she have a mental illness? All of those things. Knowing those things would make it easier to protect my children.
" would have thought the main reason not to publish a criminal's writings would be that the promise of publication might spur on other killers."
That's because you are a reasonable person thinking reasonable thoughts. Progs think differently. The relevant criterion for release is whether it promises to make progs look bad.
"Republicans pounced."
Right. One measure of prog hegemony is that they can spout these cliches without blushing.
"Liberals don't need to know what motivated this particular individual, because they want the focus to be on restricting access to guns."
Well, they do and they don't want to focus on motives When raaaccccism might be involved, that needs highlighting. If jihad or anti-whitey sentiment, not so much.
"And with social media, it's so easy for criminals to make their writing available to everyone"
Right. Hale was just a little clumsy. Hamas show how it's done.
"It's "the writings," not "his writings" or "her writings" or "their writings.""
Good catch.
"I can't see how they possess any legal — or moral — authority to determine who gets to see the writings of the dead murderer Audrey Hale."
Well, moral authority is granted by our prog overlords, who in this case might benefit from parental sentiment.
My Name: "I would want their manifesto to be made public, and I cannot imagine why any other parent would not want the same."
Unlikely at a Christian school, I guess, but: the parents might agree with the killer's motives, question their own privilege, and want to be perceived as nice to trannies. Helping to hide the manifesto prevents recognition of the political animus that butchered those kids.
I'm going to give the parents the benefit of the doubt here - grieving people often do and say things that don't make rational sense.
But if one is looking for a rational reason for them to so strongly oppose the release of the writings, one might wonder if parts of those writings reflect badly on them, as parents.
Our society needs to know what went wrong here so we can at a minimum know what to look out for in future. The manifesto is a window into that thinking and it deserves to be made available. I feel a great sympathy for Brent Leatherwood over his losing a child, but at the same time I want to punch him in the head for thinking it gives him the right to be some ultimate moral arbiter.
Amazing how the left just forget about the innocent children who were slaughtered... because narratives trump everything with the corrupt left.
Curious to compare the media's decision here to their fetishization or manipulation of other killers' and terrorist group's manifestos. As an actual woman, I view the current transgender movement as a terroristic contagion on young females. It is also a terrorist contagion on young males.
I visited the happily short-lived-circle-jerk of a museum for status journalism -- "Newseum" -- in DC some years ago. It was Neroistically grotesque in many ways, but what struck me most grotesque was a visual display -- abetted by the FBI -- of the actual Unibomber's cabin, Waco artifacts, and other domestic terrorism detritus, excluding all leftist domestic terror and even implying that the Unibomber was a right-wing nut and that Koresh was just some conservative Christian.
Lie after lie, the media was the hero of the story.
This is just the latest tweaking of the narrative.
I would posit that the parents do not want the shooter, who took the lives of their children, to also be permitted to label them. Hence the desire to suppress the manifesto.
That said, if some mentally deranged person murdered my child I would want their manifesto to be made public, and I cannot imagine why any other parent would not want the same.
Yes I have pondered that as well and can only offer the suggestion this parent is far enough left of center that they don't want the public to know what was privately revealed to them (the parents) already because it reflects badly on the whole leftist hate whitey / transmania confluence infecting the Democrat party. Nothing will bring their child back. But they have made a calculation that revealing the motives and hatred of the killer would be more painful somehow than keeping it under wraps. I would want to warn others of the danger this person posed, which was the supposed reason we needed to know everything the Jewish center's killer wrote and everything the kid wrote before shooting up a Black Bible study group.
Big DNC Media is amazingly inconsistent on our need to know. {see Biden, Joseph R., for example]
I have not read all the comments or the manifesto but I will bet there is no mention of the danger of administering male hormones to girls who want to be boys.
Amazing how the left just forget about the innocent children who were slaughtered... because narratives trump everything with the corrupt left.
Yes my wife had allegedly right-wing Fox News on yesterday and they said "six people were killed" in that passive voice that is so despicable, and failed to mention that half were little children cowering in fear. No such formula was used in Uvalde, as I recall.
Also, legally, victims are just witnesses to the crimes that befell them. As they have no say in other criminal justice decisions, why are they being accorded one here, or, rather, why aren't all victims accorded their privileges? There is an enormous legal/journalistic/academic apparatus to silence victims of politically incorrect crimes and highlight victims of politically useful crimes. White victims of interracial crime are demeaned; white offenders are highlighted; victims of crime committed by minorities against minorities or "majorities" are minimized or blamed on white, heterosexual, conservative, etc. culture.
It's socially isolating to be the victim of one of these politically inconvenient crimes. On the other side, the reward system accorded to those unfortunates who side with the narrative instead of condemning the criminal may be soul-gnawing, but it is also very socially rewarding.
It seems fairly obvious that if something bad happens to a member of your family, everyone has to do whatever you want from then on. Right?
I don't see how releasing the manifesto creates harm to the families of the victims. Sure, it makes them sad, but that doesn't trump the good of the public understanding what happened.
Over on Powerlinebog.com I see that John Hinderaker expresses the same concern I have regarding the possibility (likelihood?) that a component of Audrey Hale's rage was due to receiving more testosterone than her body could handle. He also points out that ...
“Trans” leaders had called for a “Trans Day of Vengeance” to “stop trans genocide,” to take place just a few days after Hale’s murder spree. Was that coincidence, or did activists influence Hale to enact her own “day of vengeance”? We still don’t know. [Scare quotes in the original]
Good point.
The shooter was a weak-minded, screwed-up libtard who imbided all the "hate Whitey" & "white speople are evil" propoaganda put out by our MSM and educational establishment.
She specifically talks about shooting little blond kids.
You can just imagine the different MSM reaction to the release of the manifesto if the school shot up had been Jewish. Or if this white skinned looney had shot up a black school.
Glad the NYT's and MSM are now making it so clear. Shooter Manifesto makes Right look bad: Release it and blame the right for causing the shooting. Manifesto makes Left look bad: cover-up, bury it, and blame the Republicans for "pouncing".
I'm glad that Althouse always talks about the "framing" of stories. If she was a conservative, she wouldn't do that. Because Conservatives are too dumb.
Imagine the difference the NYT article would have been if the manifesto and shooter was right wing.
What absolute bullshit!
The powers that be suppressed and hid the manifesto.
The FBI or whoever was running the case doesn't give a fuck what the parents want, and that should not be the basis for following standard procedure.
The democrat party didn't want it released because it exposes their DEI fraud.
Were I one of those parents, I'd be shouting the manifesto from the rooftops so it won't happen again to somebody else.
We just gotta find that leaker. JUST GOTTA.
And I know just the guy for the job - C.J. John Roberts
"If the parents want the writings suppressed we can take it as a given that the parents have been given access to the writings."
If a parent wanted it suppressed and it was for that reason, then it should be published if a parent wishes it to be published.
Has anyone asked each parent?
Can anyone conceive of such an anodyne reaction to any "right wing day of vengeance" announced ahead of time? Or one being called a "mostly peaceful protest" after the fact? Their still despicably smearing the Tea Party events which acted as cleaning crews more than raging protests.
I'm going to leave my original comment and not delete it, but I do want to issue a mea culpa - I thought it was the shooter's parents wanting to keep the manifesto secret, but it's the victims' parents.
Tina mentions the Newseum in DC. I worked with them in their early days on the MLK Jr assassination and thought I might go see what they did with all the footage and photos but it must be too late now, if they've dispersed.
The tranifesto should be a public document, like the Unibomber's, or "Mein Kampf." So the answer to the leading question is No.
I'm issuing an oops for my 10:43 comment that supplanted an intended they're for a misused their but YKWIM.
Some bands in the transgender spectrum are more stable than others. I blame political congruence ("=") for conflating sex and gender, and socially distancing mainstream transgenders from these volatile cases.
child/teen transitions were tried on the small scale and largely failed in the 1970s to 1980s
It is a myth and real. Let's do it again.
Diversity, liberalism, politics, and profits are a toxic stew. In Stork They Trust.
Amadeus 48 said...
"She just sucked up too much Ibram X. Kendi (or Henry Rogers--say his name!) and Robin DiAngelo."
What happened would be too simplistic without dragging blacks into it. Because it's too obvious other Americans can't think of a white kid as a "cracker" without their black puppet masters pulling their strings (As we all know from Dave Chappelle, and our own life experience, black men and trans are attached at the hip that way,...).
I haven't thought anything about this, except A) it was a horrible tragedy and B) I'll be glad when the now-rainbow-haired NewAge is over in America, because - if believing absurdities leads to committing atrocities - then this land can certainly do with a lot less of THAT.
How many parents were fighting to keep it from publication?
And, as others have said, what references to transitioning and drugs are included in "The larger trove of documents — which one city official quantified in court as “voluminous” .."
Steven Crowder's reporting on the transifesto has been trashed by YouTube, citing it as a violation of their so-called violent criminal organizations policy.
Here's YouTube's own explanation, "Content that glorifies violent criminal organizations or incites violence is not allowed on YouTube."
Interested to see (or not see, as it were) further examples of YouTube's laudable policy in action I launched a simple search on the terms "pro-hamas rally". In fact, the engine suggested several dozen strings after "pro-hamas" was entered, and I simply chose the first one on the list. Now, Hamas is recognized as a criminal organization by many governments around the globe, notably our own, and therefore the phrase must by any valid application of logic meet YouTube's own criteria for disallowed content, and yet the resultant hits are more numerous than I care to count, including many of Hamas's own self-glorification videos, such as their 10/7 paraglider attack that "Black Lives Matter" adopted as one of their racist symbols.
"Democracy dies in darkness," is constantly on many left-leaning tongues, and yet the owners of these tongues are smashing every light they can lay hands on.
Had the manifesto been an anti-black or anti-muslim manifesto, it would have been published by the NYTimes the day after the shooting, and everyone knows this, right? Right? Right?
You want to know how I knew the pages Crowder published were likely authentic? Because they are exactly the kinds of thoughts the Left would have worked overtime to suppress from becoming public. One could have predicted the contents of the manifesto precisely because they were being withheld, and it had jack-shit to do with the feelings of the families involved. Hale was a left-wing psycho- that was what was being suppressed.
The damage done today is already significant....” said Brent Leatherwood, a parent of three Covenant students.... He called whoever had leaked the photos “a viper” who had allowed someone “who terrorized our family with bullets to be able to now terrorize us with words from the grave.”...
You have a right not to read the writings.
You don't have a right to keep US from reading them, and talking about them
Several news outlets, including The Tennessean; at least one state lawmaker; and gun rights groups sued for the release of the documents after their requests were stonewalled during what police officials said was an ongoing investigation.
The killer was dead. What's their "ongoing investigation"?
Everyone who blocked the release of these documents should be fired for cause
There are valid reasons to suppress a manifesto, in part or in full. For instance, if the manifesto dragged in some innocent party that had nothing to do with anything, that part does not need to be released.
That said:
1. You cannot use this tragic event as justification for government action, and then withhold important information that would inform that decision making.
2. The fact that the manifesto would hurt the feelings of anyone is not relevant. I understand how horrible it is to lose a child to a lunatic, but if our guiding principle is to not offend anyone then society would collapse in pretty short order.
3. At the moment, what has been revealed has not justified the suppression of the manifesto. If there is something in there that requires delicacy, we haven't seen it. It stinks of a cover-up.
If all news stories about mass shootings were prohibited there would probably be fewer of them and they might fade away entirely. The copycat affect is strong.
There's always a good argument to suppress free-speech.
Reckless rhetoric from politicians, news organizations, and activists is more a threat to life and limb than this manifesto.
I wasn’t "confusing the pieces of paper — the chattel — with the copyright. Copyright is property, but publishing this material is so clearly fair use that there is nothing to argue about." I understand the two concepts, but any copyright is also presumably owned by the parents as the shooter's heirs.
My comment was a reaction to your statement that "The writings are part of the evidence in this case, and I can't see how they possess any legal — or moral — authority to determine who gets to see the writings of the dead murderer Audrey Hale." To me, the structure implies that because the writing - work or its physical embodiment on paper - was evidence, somehow the owner of the work/paper lost their legal right or authority to that property. My comment was intended to probe that perceived implication. (I wasn’t addressing and don’t care about the assertion of any moral rights to the property by non-owners.)
I didn't practice in intellectual property either. But the shooter's writings are an unpublished work, and I don't think fair use of unpublished works is as clear cut as you asserted. And in this case, an unpublished work that may have been obtained as the result of a criminal act. (There may be a 1A right to publish, but that's a different question and analysis than the application of copyright law, I believe.)
Finally, I wonder how you'd have reacted to one of your students who asserted, after applying a 4-factor test, that his or her conclusion 'is so clearly [correct] that there is nothing to argue about.' I bet something like that happened more than once over your decades of teaching.
If shim hadn’t been put down and out of shim’s misery…
Shim woulda been put on… teh cover of teh Rolling Stone!
@ tim maguire, 7:54 AM
I don't think I was assuming anything of the sort. I asked a question based upon an implication I read into the Professor's last paragraph that maybe wasn't intended or fairly there so my question may have been off the mark.
Is there still an active investigation into the shooting? I can't imagine why.
As to whether the parents would want the manifesto returned to them, I have no idea but it's theirs so presumably they get to make the decisions with respect to their property. But all I was trying to explore was whether the State had any rights to the manifesto outside of the use in an active investigation or a court proceeding.
When all of the evidence (including pictures) from the Warren Commission is released, that's when I'll start believing that the (shadow) government cares about truth and is looking-out for all of its people. Until then it's still hide the weasel.
IMO, "displacement" is underrated as a reason for picking a target.
Hale was gender dysphoric. That used to be considered a mental illness until it was discovered to lead to Big Bucks, when it became a sacrament.
She was trying for something she desperately wanted-what her particular modes of "trying" were are yet to be disclosed--andn they weren't working. Or maybe her helpers figured they hadn't maxed the billable hours yet.
In any event, she was desperately angry and needed a target. Which was provided by the left...whites. Particularly those who had money for a private school and up-scale back packs and blonde hair.
They are a discernible type. They can be conveniently found in a particular area without other types getting in the way. They are actually doing the white thing--private school, upscale back packs, blonde hair--in real time.
They are concentrated, unlike all the other possible recipients for anger.
I think this is what's called, "stochastic terrorism".
And see the arrest of William Whitman of Colorado Springs a couple of weeks later.
Richard,
"And see the arrest of William Whitman of Colorado Springs a couple of weeks later."
GOOG seems to know absolutely nothing about any such story.
Post a Comment