Straight off the bat, let me just say that when socially and mentally disturbed people shoot up rooms full of school kids, I have no sympathy with their cause whatsoever, except to believe that society needs to find a better solution to these types of issues than simply pumping the people who experience them full of drugs with bizarre side-effects, leaving them with a lot of time alone and hoping for the best.
But with that out of the way, what I find almost equally as infuriating is media stories like this one, complete with scare-a-licious “the interwebs made him do it” hyperbole and tenuous illogical causal connections between the killer’s habits and his crime:
“Some of the “cult” names on the site refer to death, freaks, witchcraft and sex or sexuality. Others refer to bands or have seemingly innocent names. The site links to an online clothing store, which sells black T-shirts, corsets and shorts with chains.”
Well f*ck me, that sort of thing has only been going on since the bloody sixties, we’d better lock it down quick-smart before culture leads some other mentally-ill drug-addled social reject to do something terrible, hadn’t we?
This, though, is the bit that really scares me, especially in the current climate of thought-control and government suppression of free speech:
“Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Thursday that the Montreal shooting was impossible to comprehend. He also said there is a tricky balance between freedom of speech and Web sites such as vampirefreaks.com.
‘We as a society have trouble squaring our outrage at some of the images we see, some of the messages that are communicated to young people in particular…with our belief in freedom and our desire to avoid censorship,’ Harper said.”
Speak for yourself, pal. Being possessed of what I consider to be a certain degree of common sense, I can separate a person’s incidental hobbies and hang-out spots from any sociopathic behaviour they may exhibit. Otherwise, I’d be pushing for the banning of football because of the apish brutality of a minority of its ardent fans, and the abolishment of television because statistics show that almost every serial killer ever has been a serious television watcher. There is no conflict with free speech here. Free speech cannot pick up a gun. Free speech is not the problem.
COINCIDENCE IS NOT A CAUSAL LINK, YOU STORY-SPINNING OPPORTUNIST POWER JUNKIES. Would there be the same outcry if he’d been a high-school football player who hung out on some sports site cracking misogynist jokes and talking about pummeling nerds?
I’d not like to lay money against the appearance of a rallying call of bandwagon-jumping politicos calling for an immediate ban of this and all other subcultural social networks, along with restrictions to the internet in general, all because one screwed up b*stard, who needed a lot more care and help than the system could or would provide, went loco and killed some people. I’ll bet the people who’ll (quite justifiably) call for the banning of guns will be a distinct minority in comparison, and will be shouted down by (oh, the irony) the civil liberties lobby. Banning is only for things that other people do.
And to add to my fury at this sort of “cure the symptoms, not the disease” bullsh*t, I hear via the Slush God that eBay is attempting to ban the sale of black- and extreme-metal music and merchandise on their site, because it “promote[s] or glorif[ies] hatred, violence, or racial intolerance.” One presumes that to keep their integrity on that one, they’ll also be banning all hip-hop as well, along with a lot of the more red-neck orientated country/rock and anything else that mentions ideas that cretins might decide to adopt as a creed or religion?
I’m fuming; I need a beer. Of course, now I’ve mentioned on-line the fact that I’m a bit pissed off, someone had better unilaterally abolish blogging, because there’s a real chance that I might now go off and do domething stupid, and IT WOULD ALL BE THE FAULT OF THE INTARWEBS.
Where the hell is Hunter Thompson, now we need him most?