Florida Mass Shooting

Post Reply New Topic

oh okay , thank you for updating me about that.

You’re welcome.

Seems the shooter thought the family were sex traffickers and wanted to rescue a trafficked child he thought lived there. So can we talk about the responsibility of everyone who spreads a bogus conspiracy theory encouraging such ideas to take root in mentally ill minds? A lot of the social media movement is pushed by profiteers; should they be accountable?

First i have about the shooters thoughts he was encountering a sex trafficking ring . Casts a little different light on his mental State. Have to agreed with what DW amom wrote about social media possible complicity in his Mental issues . Media in general needs to be responsible for their activities. That might affect people adversely .

Remember that time a Bernie Sanders volunteer tried to murder the entire Republican baseball team because he believed the party line about them being evil and wanting him dead because of their policy preferences? Should the Democratic party have been found liable in some way for that?

I think in this world of hyper-partisanship in which dangerous information can spread like lightening, it is a valid question to consider. The balance I am tentatively leaning towards - I’m only brainstorming here - is leaving free speech as free speech but perhaps penalizing amplification that is designed to increase clicks and, thus, profits. There are people out there making a living solely by spreading the most sensational stories they can find. Could holding them accountable for their part help dampen the negative social media impact?

Assume Donald Trump or his equivalent will someday be put in charge of deciding who gets held responsible for what.

Point.

What if ... if, in this case, they traced back the spread of the child trafficking misinformation to a specific profiteer? What if the enforcement was in the hands of bi-partisan group with a mechanism to insure continued bi-partisanship?

In theory you can make the same argument about every police department and federal law enforcement agency, but there generally are guardrails to help tamper the political effects.

What if I said something that was true, but an insane person chose to act violently on it; why should the truth of a statement, or the profit motive, make a statement no longer subject to 1st Amendment protections? You're trying to assign blame to someone other than the person who pulled the trigger, and I think that's misguided regardless of what kind of safeguards you try to put in place. It's like when someone kills themself and people try to figure out why, it's a futile exercise and ripe for abuse.

I don't want to take the blame off the shooter; he will have his consequences.

But I am concerned about what is happening with information. You and I both know that freedom isn't infinite. Your freedom ends where it causes specific harm to me. Laws, regulations and social rules are about finding the right balance. At some point we have to deal, as a society, with the ill effects of social media and the profit motives that intentionally amplify lies and misconceptions solely to attract eyeballs. The profiteers aren't spreading news for expression; they are doing it for eyeballs and clicks, to rake in the advertising commissions. They KNOW what they are putting a spotlight on is inaccurate and potentially dangerous. While I understand your points, shouldn't there be a public interest line there somewhere? It's a conversation we need to have IMHO.

You and I come from totally different starting points when it comes to public interest lines, but that is why I find it interesting to hear your input.

Well how do we stop people shooting 11 year old girls and their family, for some sex trafficking the shooter imagined at least according to more articles coming out about it. But also i don't get if he thought he was protecting some sex trafficking victim...why did he shoot an 11 year old girl and her family where the girl had to play dead while her whole familiy got killed to survive.

Maybe take a second to think about that, and yeah maybe some people want to find ways to prevent this kind of s**t from happening repeatedly, can you blame them for that. Also the second amendment did not take current weapons into account, I don't see what is wrong with people proving they don't want to go and shoot people being a requirement to get big guns, I know some gun fananitcs go all haywire if you say assualt weapons...so I guess I will just say big guns.

It's a puzzling aspect. Didn't he first ask her if she was Amber, the name he thought he was supposed to rescue? I've assumed that in his twisted logic that if the child wasn't the victim, she had to be complicit in the crime. That would explain why he seemed to think she could help him find the victim he had to rescue.

Careful, you are making too much sense. The game here is to see how a cray man has a constitutional right to own a firearm that can kill women and children

Well even within the twisted logic how was an 11 year old girl he shot multiple times supposed to possibly help him after that, especially if she had to play dead while her whole family got killed and and saving the imanginary victim. And what if he(the murderer)is just making up things to avoid responsibility for the freaking absolutely horiffic thing he did.

He said they begged for their lives and he shot them anyways including a baby, that does not seem like the attitude of someone trying to save a sex trafficking victim. If he really thought that is what he was doing why did he shoot an 11 year old girl and a mother and baby in her arms? seems fishy to me..

He should have had no access to firearms, once he started spouting off s**t about god telling him to do things. If that is even true but he could be making it up to avoid responsibility about the people he killed. Either way I think if you start spouting off about god telling you to do things that is a good time to have fire-arms taken away or at least some more restricted access.

But if he really thought that was going on, it would have been fair to assume the 11 year old was also being trafficked, so still cannot see how if all that is true he rationalized shooting a potential additional child of his imaginary sex traffickig ring was also exploiting. That is why it seems fishy like he says that but he shot an 11 year old girl and a baby boy in his mothers arms and also the mother and father Just does not seem like the actions of someone who is largely concerned about child trafficking, especially if they are willing to shoot a child.