The VT massacre will probably result in more infringements on our First Amendment Rights

[RagingInMiami]

They are now reporting that he wrote "obscenity- and violence-laced screenplays" in a creative writing class. According to the AP, one screenplay "was about a fight between a stepson and his stepfather, and involved throwing of hammers and attacks with a chainsaw. Another was about students fantasizing about stalking and killing a teacher who sexually molested them."

I won't be surprised if this leads to a crackdown on other writers who write in similar fashions even if they display no other evidence that they are prone to such violence.

It won't be much different than the crackdown on people who were photographing buildings and bridges after 9/11 because "9/11 changed everything".


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070417/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting

[aquart]

1. But none on our gun rights.

Right?

[INDIA]

2. Nah. Probably not.

For that to happen, people in the "creative" sector, i.e., professors, literary agents, etc., would first have to turn in the authors of such works, or alert the authorities. Most people who end up reading this material are also progressive, and uncomfortable with a big-brother monitoring their classrooms. I don't see that happening unless there is REALLY good cause, like specifically targeting real people etc.

This event, while tragic, won't change anything on that front.

[hiaasenrocks]

5. His professor did refer him to counseling.

[INDIA]

6. Good. That was the right thing to do. Unfortunately not enough though.

I have a lot of faith in professors to weed out what is creative fantasy and what are warning signals.

Unfortunately, even if the counselor thought the guy was batshit crazy and capable of murder, without him committing a specific crime or specifically conspiring to harm certain people, there would be little he could do short of alert the kids parents.

[LSparkle]

3. Sticks and stones and guns may break my bones

but words will SURELY kill us ...

[hiaasenrocks]

4. And the real story here is that his writings are, well, just bad writing.

Ever seen some of the crap that college kids write in their "creative writing" classes?

I've read that his professor referred him to counseling. The professor should have recommended that he change his major from English to something that requires little or no talent and creativity.

I agree with you. There will be some who will use this to call into question certain screenwriters, novelists and essayists.

Just another bullshit, diversionary side issue. Sigh.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. People are already complaining about it.

Some how Stephen King is involved. Apparently.

[meldroc]

8. People were accusing me of being a gun troll yesterday, but this is what I was talking about.

Lots of people write and draw dark and disturbing things. Is that an indicator of mental illness? Maybe... Does it mean they ARE mentally ill? NO!

I certainly wrote and drew lots of things that would have gotten me a psychatric evaluation if I had written them post-Columbine.

Hell, if Stephen King started writing today, they would have locked him up. Then there's Chuck Palahniuk... He wrote Fight Club after a publisher rejected one of his books for being "too disturbing."

How do you separate people who just write and draw a few disturbing things from the truly mentally ill? Society has done an exceptionally shitty job so far.

[piedmont]

9. How about we all follow Ben Franklin's advice:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

[happyslug]

10. No, to do so would require some sort of Mental Screening

And once you have a mental Screening that a person is a danger to society if he or she has a gun, then you have to give that person some sort of hearing on that issue. At the hearing if the danger is confirmed, then you have to address the underlying mental problem. i.e. give defendant some sort of mental treatment, which is expensive and time consuming.

Remember if the person, based on his mental screening is UNFIT to own a weapon, what other restrictions would you impose on such a person? Ban him or her from driving a car? An automobile is a 2000 pound killing machine, on a day to day basis automobiles killed more people than guns even in the US. Thus what if the only way for mentally challenged person can go for his required mental treatment is by automobile, do you have some one drive him to the treatment center? Do you leave such a person drive, since it would be more cost-effective? OR do you just ban him or her from driving and tell him or her it is up to them to get to their treatment center (Which most can not do do to their mental problems)?

No this latest call for restrictions on Guns, Speech and the mental challenged will go no where, for no one wants to pay the price to take care of people with severe mental problems. Nether the cost of detection, nor the cost of treatment.