|
My aim is to create some discussion about the human mind and it's relations. A massive area, I know.
To start with, lets think about corporation being awarded personhood. According to the Wikipedia page on this, that corporations as groups of people may hold certain rights under common law of the U.S constitution. Doesn't this also mean that they should also be held to certain consequences as well?
I'm referring to the history of mass shootings in the United States. While they are not the reason, they are encouraging it by directly ignoring the warnings issued to them by people such as Robert Ebert They are in fact doing much more than ignoring them, they are doing the exact opposite.
I realize that this theoretical situation has massive holes in it, but if a person were to be held guilty by association (i,e encouraging illegal behavior), shouldn't a corporation be held liable as well?
For the sake of starting argument, I would maintain that Time Warner Inc. which owns the news channel CNN, should be held responsible for their actions in encouraging mass shootings.
Evidence of this can be found in many places, one of which is the same Robert Ebert and his analysis of the news reporting style, linked above.
thanks,
Ender
|
Baa?21242 Posts
You're conflating two distinct issues into one, poorly logiced-out post here.
The legal principle of a separate corporate entity has very little to do with your actual point, which is to what standards should the press be held.
|
I was attempting to link the two because currently the press is not held to any standards. They are only held only by their integrity, which is sadly lacking. I admit, the logic is a bit far fetched.
I think that the legal principle of a separate corporate entity can only be held to certain standards by issuing legal measures.
this is my first time writing a blog, and appreciate any and all input into improving my writing.
|
To start with, lets think about corporation being awarded personhood. According to the Wikipedia page on this, that corporations as groups of people may hold certain rights under common law of the U.S constitution. Doesn't this also mean that they should also be held to certain consequences as well?
Corporations are not immune from criminal/civil liability. I suspect the reason they are not prosecuted more is because they are too powerful/important, not because they are considered not to be guilty.
If superman exists, and he started committing crimes, what are you gonna do? Issue an arrest warrant for him? Even if you do, what if he just laughs in your face and destroys the police? It might be better to just try to negotiate with him and hope he doesn't do anything worse.
I realize that this theoretical situation has massive holes in it, but if a person were to be held guilty by association (i,e encouraging illegal behavior), shouldn't a corporation be held liable as well?
Not sure if this is actually the case, (eg actually illegal to encourage illegal behaviour). Any citations for this?
|
Not sure if this is actually the case, (eg actually illegal to encourage illegal behaviour). Any citations for this?
According to the Wikipage, encouraging illegal behaivor makes you an accessory. I think the argument would boil down to whether or not they are intentionally doing it, as there is more leniency for not intentionally doing it, all though you are still considered liable
|
Watch the documentary: The Corporation and I think you'll have a better idea that suits your opinion more.
|
Torte de Lini, I just watched the trailer, pretty amazing quote in it. "We just paid 3 billion dollars for these channels, the news is what we say it is." Makes you happy we have the internet.
|
So what's the argument here? that by explaining and broadcasting the behaviour of killers, they are actually encouraging them?
The issue here is not so much whether if corporations should be guilty or liable, its more whether if anyone doing this should be guilty or liable.
I don't see why it should be an offence, you never know what might inspire a crazy person to go on a killing spree, banning certain types of news broadcasts is overreacting imo. If some idiot shot the president because they were inspired by Jim Raynor from SC2, what you gonna do? Make blizzard liable and ban SC2?
|
So what's the argument here? that by explaining and broadcasting the behaviour of killers, they are actually encouraging them?
The issue here is not so much whether if corporations should be guilty or liable, its more whether if anyone doing this should be guilty or liable.
I don't see why it should be an offence, you never know what might inspire a crazy person to go on a killing spree, banning certain types of news broadcasts is overreacting imo. If some idiot shot the president because they were inspired by Jim Raynor from SC2, what you gonna do? Make blizzard liable and ban SC2?
the point is to begin doing something about all of these mass murders. For too long they've been blaming video games. While it is quite unclear as to why these things happens, I think it is patently obvious that the way you portray something on your major news cable makes a difference. Some examples that come to mind are: 1. giving them a catchy name (sandy hook killer). 2. Referring to the victims as a "body count". 3. interviewing children. All of these things have happened, which shows absolutely no integrity/ no knowledge about the subliminal effect that this will have on people.
So something concrete that can be done is to limit the exposure to facts only, make it boring, and localize it, which is basically what the my orignal link says.
|
You're trying to link physically enabling murder, i.e. being an accessory to murder, versus corporations enabling the media preferring to provide more mainstream content that idealizes violence.
You want to be arguing whether corporations are bound to the same laws humans are. In enabling their press to sensationalize violence, they are actively lending a hand in murders - an accessory to murder.
Now you need to find evidence that actively supports this. There is anecdotal reasoning that yes, media has made society more violent - quote Marilyn Manson. However, reasoning is not enough evidence to attack a corporation for, unless this reasoning has become ingrained in the minds of the majority of the population. You need solid proof. Hard data that media sensationalizing violence actually influences behavior. This you will be very hard-pressed to do as you fighting to unravel 15 years worth of anti-video games lobbying.
Then, you need to somehow determine whether it is the society's changes that has guided the media into producing more content sensationalizing violence, or whether it is the media's intent to depict violence. You can also argue whether the corporation's ignorance of their actions actually matters. You want to argue whether corporations should be responsible for their actions; whether they can plead ignorant and get away with it. However, you have no evidence to even push them enough to plead ignorant.
No one is stupid enough to actively push for more mass murders. That's a case you will never win. So now, it's whether they should be responsible for the content they produce.
So is it the media that has responded to the wants of the population, and depict more violent instances because people like more violent events? Or have they been the instigators, feeding people onto more and more violent entertainment - because they started depicting violent events, people like more violence? Because the media only reports the news depending on what the population wants, it is impossible to distinguish between the two, and here your discussion ends.
You can only be held liable if your actions are what enabled the problem. Without your actions, the events would have turned out differently. Good luck arguing whether the news enables violence because they depict and sensationalize more violence. It is not the corporation at fault when people are mentally unstable. This instability is the result of their upbringing. You can argue that the parents are at fault.
But now you can go is it unethical for corporations to rely on parents to teach them proper behavior, etc.
Just focusing your ideas a bit. Interesting discussion really, that is really hard to do properly I'm afraid.
EDIT: Since you argue making the news more boring. Why? What evidence do you have to link the two as an implication? That's the point. It's exactly the same as arguing that video games make people violent. A moot point, to speak blandly. The corporations and media make the media interesting by depicting violence. Games are interesting to people because they depict violence. If you make the content boring, no one pays attention to you, because it doesn't penetrate the human ability to focus on the more relevant, more interesting object. In the end, people who think objectively and "correctly" will never do it. We may fantasize about it, but we can separate the fantasy from the reality.
|
You can only be held liable if your actions are what enabled the problem. Without your actions, the events would have turned out differently. Good luck arguing whether the news enables violence because they depict and sensationalize more violence. It is not the corporation at fault when people are mentally unstable. This instability is the result of their upbringing. You can argue that the parents are at fault.
I wouldn't argue that the initial shooting was caused by sensationalizing violence, whether it is through video games or the news. I agree that the initial and ultimate responsibility is on the parent to 1. properly raise their children and, 2. when things are no longer in their control, to seek help.
I think fault could be applied, by showing that their is a history of another shooting happening within some time frame of another one. Basically, the news is aiding in the "flurry" of shootings. There has been some pretty insane coverage over these shootings in the past year, and they are at the highest rate yet. Of course, that could also just be that the news is reporting them more, as they sell the papers. who knows...
Since you argue making the news more boring. Why?
This was an argument made by the guy in my original link. I think it would be a means of reporting the news while at the same time doing it responsibly.
Basically, this is just me trying to come to grips with this. It's one of the unanswerable questions in the world that NEED answering. This article was what caused me to think so much about it that I had to write it down. Hopefully the President does something about this.
|
Shit. Well, that article changes a lot of things.
Wow. I'll have to respond another day since I have an exam tomorrow. Very good food for thought in the meantime though, thanks!
You may want to amend your OP though, because the OP and the last post are different enough that they could lead people to different conclusions about what you're talking about and where you're coming from.
|
Yea this thing has been in my mind all day. And glhf on the exam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
