And the tragedy in US happens again. The massacre by a gunman occurred in Oregon college. As always, the medias come to dig in the information about the suspected. The interviews from the family and his family background was announced without censoring name or face. But this time, the email has lead us further. The digital tracing lead us to the activities online such as blogging, crowd funding which is drag to the file shared by bit-torent also include archetypal pornography. Isn’t it fair enough to feed the overwhelmed mass with this kind of data which can be judged like finding a spot on the cloth. Maybe he could be interested in other file not the represented file. If it’s okay to be a judge or criminologist, by just watching the news. Isn’t it public interest or gozzip news. Now comes the question to my mind.
_______________________________________
My question is:
Is the relatives of the suspected or murder have the right to their own or even the murder’s privacy?
___________
Reference
Jacob, B. Woolf, N. (2015, October 1)Chris Harper Mercer: details emerge of Oregon college killer. The Guardian.Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/chris-harper-mercer-first-details-emerge-of-oregon-college-killer
I haven't read Union's source, which perhaps answers a question I have. What is "archetypal pornography"? I'm guessing it means the traditional type of pornography of men having sex with women, and nothing special, unlike, for example, violent pornography, rape porn, or so on.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I should have a look at the source.
As well as his own question, I thought Union's post raises wider questions about privacy for all of us such as whether stuff posted online about us, or by us, should be under our control or not. Also, do we need to revise our traditional ideas about some things, for example, should we care whether people watch pornography or not, as most people do and then lie that they don't? Perhaps it would be healthier for society, and individuals, to inject some honesty and reason into such issues?
I seem to have asked more questions than I've answered, or not answered.
Now I've read the source, and it sounds like archetypal means "boring, ordinary" or as the Guardian article says, "soft".
DeleteThe amount of detail on the killer is impressive, but it all sounds rather boring I thought - it isn't obvious that any of it has any connection to his decision to shoot people, unless to suggest that he's a bit teenagerish at age twenty since he was still living at home with his mum and so on.
It's lesbian
Delete"The email address Ironcross45@gmail.com is also associated with a crowdfunding webpage to help the user pay for uploading and storing bittorrent files for downloading videos as well. According to the cached version of the webpage, the most recent video uploaded was Collection Of Hot Lesbians (Nudes) Vol. 8."
Sorry, I forgot to quote.
It's lesbian
Delete"The email address Ironcross45@gmail.com is also associated with a crowdfunding webpage to help the user pay for uploading and storing bittorrent files for downloading videos as well. According to the cached version of the webpage, the most recent video uploaded was Collection Of Hot Lesbians (Nudes) Vol. 8."
Sorry, I forgot to quote.
His background sounds very boring, normal and nothing at all special. Do any normal, healthy young men not look at pornography? (Do many young women not look at pornography? I honestly don't know. Maybe my sister can shed some light on this when I see her on Wednesday. It will give us something to chat about over lunch.)
DeleteReally? Do you ask her in front of her children? haha!
DeleteLike what Peter said, this question seemed to include some points which might be quite wide, particularly “the right to their own” and “the murder’s privacy). So, I am not sure if I could give you a right answer. If not, I still hope it might be useful comments in another aspect.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, at first it seems that a murder who kills others without realizing their human being like him should not deserve any human right. However, because of human being, he or she should have human right as others have. This is because such action causing others’ death might not result from his or her real intention. For example, perhaps a murder or the suspected kill people as a result of mental problems, others’ command and intimidation and so on. So, he/she and the relatives of him/her should deserve human right to protect their fame. Meanwhile, although a murder kills others with intention, his/her relatives who do not participate in such an action should have a right for protecting their fame.
P.S. I’m sorry if I misunderstand your question.
Thank you Feem, you give an actual answer for my question. This question is came to my mind when I saw a picture of a jail in Scandinavia, It looks so comfy. And I have heard about a jail closing because there is no prisoner! Meanwhile in Thailand, where belief about prisoner is different, The prison is very crowded. I don't believe in bad "gene" but I believe in bad "thought".
Delete