For some strange reason the new Joker movie has been for many weeks the target of a massive moral panic campaign by the regressive leftist media and activists. I'm assuming that some social justice activist or journalist got the idea of bashing that movie, made up some reasons to bash it and claim that it will pander to white men and will cause "white terrorists" to commit crimes, and the mainstream media at large went along the ride, creating this massive artificial moral panic about it.
Many have pointed out that the media is actually and effectively trying their hardest to create a self-fulfilling prophecy: By going on and on and on about how this movie presents the danger of someone going on a mass shooting attack... they are actually inciting people to go on a mass shooting attack. If the media didn't care about this movie at all, nor talked about it, nobody would care. However, the media is drawing a lot of attention to it and, willingly or unwittingly, insinuating to people that if they commit a mass shooting because of this movie, they will get enormous amounts of media attention. The media is effectively sending the message "if you perform a mass shooting because of this movie, you will become world-famous, we will talk about you for weeks, and we will create massive moral outrage because of your act. We will give you your fifteen minutes of fame, and elevate you to be one of the most famous people in the entire world for weeks, publishing article after article about your act of terrorism."
In other words, they are effectively taunting people to do it. They are effectively inciting people into doing it, effectively promising them world-wide fame as a reward. A promise that their act will shake the very foundations of society, and create widespread moral panic.
An interesting question from a legal perspective is: If somebody indeed goes ahead and performs a mass shooting because of all this, can the media be held responsible for incitement to violence?
I am not a lawyer, but here's my thoughts on it anyway.
If this had been one single publication, and nobody had talked about it at all, and this one single publication quite clearly and constantly wrote about this and tried to indirectly incite people into doing the crime, a legal case could perhaps be made against them. People could point out that the writings of this one publication were a direct motivation for the criminal to commit his act.
However, what happens when dozens and dozens of publications join the bandwagon, repeating each others' points? Can they all be held accountable for this? Or even one of them?
It seems that such a case would be exponentially harder to make. Effectively, all these publications are protected by being part of a crowd. It's very difficult to start pointing fingers and assign blame to any one single entity, or blame the entire group. Just the mere fact of it being a crowd protects its members from blame and legal consequences.
If such a terrorist attack ends up happening, will the actual culprits, the inciters, the people responsible for inciting the act, ever get legally punished? Probably not. Is this justice?
Many have pointed out that the media is actually and effectively trying their hardest to create a self-fulfilling prophecy: By going on and on and on about how this movie presents the danger of someone going on a mass shooting attack... they are actually inciting people to go on a mass shooting attack. If the media didn't care about this movie at all, nor talked about it, nobody would care. However, the media is drawing a lot of attention to it and, willingly or unwittingly, insinuating to people that if they commit a mass shooting because of this movie, they will get enormous amounts of media attention. The media is effectively sending the message "if you perform a mass shooting because of this movie, you will become world-famous, we will talk about you for weeks, and we will create massive moral outrage because of your act. We will give you your fifteen minutes of fame, and elevate you to be one of the most famous people in the entire world for weeks, publishing article after article about your act of terrorism."
In other words, they are effectively taunting people to do it. They are effectively inciting people into doing it, effectively promising them world-wide fame as a reward. A promise that their act will shake the very foundations of society, and create widespread moral panic.
An interesting question from a legal perspective is: If somebody indeed goes ahead and performs a mass shooting because of all this, can the media be held responsible for incitement to violence?
I am not a lawyer, but here's my thoughts on it anyway.
If this had been one single publication, and nobody had talked about it at all, and this one single publication quite clearly and constantly wrote about this and tried to indirectly incite people into doing the crime, a legal case could perhaps be made against them. People could point out that the writings of this one publication were a direct motivation for the criminal to commit his act.
However, what happens when dozens and dozens of publications join the bandwagon, repeating each others' points? Can they all be held accountable for this? Or even one of them?
It seems that such a case would be exponentially harder to make. Effectively, all these publications are protected by being part of a crowd. It's very difficult to start pointing fingers and assign blame to any one single entity, or blame the entire group. Just the mere fact of it being a crowd protects its members from blame and legal consequences.
If such a terrorist attack ends up happening, will the actual culprits, the inciters, the people responsible for inciting the act, ever get legally punished? Probably not. Is this justice?
Comments
Post a Comment