"Whether you agreed with his philosophy in whole or in part, whether you disagreed vociferously with him in whole or in part, the wanton killing of a 31-year-old husband and father of two young children was an act of ruthless cruelty without regard to its consequences. An act of a killer's supreme selfishness, no matter how anyone tries to spin it. It's clear that social media has had a part in all this."
"Showing Kirk's death was another act of ruthless cruelty. At some time in the future, his children may be able to watch that terrible event. Why? To what end? Why does anyone need to see that? Is that "news" or a gratuitous indignity? No excuses, please. Since I am a dinosaur lawyer, I remember all too well the assassinations of the 1960s. Those acts of political violence stunned the nation."
"There was no internet in those days, and definitely no social media, which - given the events of the past weeks or so - even more, deserves the term "unsocial media." Way back then, people relied on newspapers and broadcast media (radio and TV) for their information. There was implicit trust then between the media and the public, only to be broken by Vietnam. Those days of trust are long gone."
The assassination of Charlie Kirk is portrayed as a shocking, ruthless act that killed a 31-year-old husband and father of two. The public sharing of his death on social media is described as an added act of cruelty that could traumatize his children and serves no legitimate purpose. Comparisons to 1960s political assassinations underscore a time before the internet when newspapers and broadcast media commanded implicit trust later broken by Vietnam. Social media is labeled "unsocial media" for amplifying harm. The events raise horror over attacks on the First Amendment and warnings about reciprocal consequences of inflammatory rhetoric.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]