Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
December 19, 2012
File Size
3.0 KB
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
496
Favourites
13 (who?)
Comments
35
×


The Connecticut police put out a statement in a press conference saying anyone "spreading misinformation about the school shooting will be prosecuted"

What?

Why?  Isn't the official story a crazed 20 year old gunman with asperger's syndrome snapped, and entered a school with a gun killed over 20 people and then killed himself?

How is "spreading misinformation" a problem, if the investigators know who did it, why they did it, and there is indefinitely no other shooter?  Investigation is done, everything else is just procedure.

People's facebook's are being suspended/banned for talking about the school shooting and asking questions. DID YOU JUST READ THAT.

"Spreading misinformation" means asking questions about this whole incident.

They are trying to take our 2nd amendment rights, and now the first amendment seems to be following.

I am not saying there is more to this story than what it is, BUT A SECOND MAN WAS ARRESTED IN THE WOODS WEARING CAMOUFLAGE PANTS AND WE HAVE HEARD NOTHING ABOUT IT

WHY?????????????? WHY!!!!

Don't even say because they are protecting his identity because he didn't do it(I dont know if he did anything or not)....

The police don't need to release his identity to talk about what the hell this guy was doing in the woods, BUT, THE MAN WAS CAUGHT IN THE WOODS THE DAY OF A SCHOOL SHOOTING. I don't think it is a lawsuit waiting to happen for his identity to be released...

On top of all that THEY RELEASED THE WRONG NAME AND PICTURE OF THE GUNMAN WHEN THIS FIRST HAPPENED. The lawsuit argument holds no water.

WHY ISNT THE MEDIA TALKING ABOUT THIS GUY IN THE WOODS.

Remember Operation fast and furious when the DHS/ATF was selling guns to the Mexican Mafia? Yeah...

News articles from my journal :::::::::::click here

Eye witness says 2nd  man was arrested in the woods on live television ::::::::::::: click here

Facebook users being suspended for talking about shooting ::::::::::::::Click here

News story, second suspect in custody :::::::::::Click Here <-----This link got taken down.

If you go to google and paste this "second-connecticut-school-shooter-suspect-in-custody/"

the story from fox shows up, except they took it down.
...............
Add a Comment:
 
:icon4eversasuxsaku:
4eversasuxsaku Featured By Owner Dec 31, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Got a point
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
At this point, do we have any rights anymore? Seems like politicians are using any tragedy as an excuse to step us of our basic liberties.
Reply
:iconmsklystron:
msklystron Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
There was a lot of misreporting immediately after the mass shooting in CT. Both internet and traditional media were releasing details that were unconfirmed and even contradictory in the same article, just to get the scoop. The police initially identified the culprit incorrectly because he was carrying his brother's ID. This should never have made it into 'print' before it was verified.

What I take from your piece above is that in spite of all the coverage and talk on the net and in traditional media, we aren't getting the news we need. People everywhere were shocked by the sheer horror of this shooting. There is a natural desire to attempt to sort out what happened and why through private and public discussion. Talk in coffee shops, around kitchen tables and water coolers isn't censored, why should it be censored on facebook and possibly elsewhere on the net is a valid question. Imagine if coffee shop owners started booting out people for talking about sensitive news issues. The only reason I can think of that facebook should agree to censor a comment (they rely on others reporting 'abuse' to them, but facebook has the ability to examine the language and context of the supposedly offending remark) is when it incites Hate or violence. There are some pretty sick trolls and flamers out there willing (and able because of anonymity) to say just about anything to get a reaction. I'm fine with them being banned (although tend to show up again with a new name and account.)

I agree, Facebook is clearly placing protecting itself from possible lawsuits above free speech. The thing is, it can do this and it doesn't have to protect your rights or mine, because we 'signed' them away by joining. Also while news media generally have to answer to their audience/ readership or allow space for editiorials, audience opinion and corrections, social media combines audience and content. Facebook readers are the writers too. Facebook itself contributes the venue or the framework, not content. It typically only responds to user complaints as far as I know. No one complains, then potentially offensive, even illegal material remains uncensored.

The person caught in the woods probably had nothing to do with the shooting, but a short sentence explaining this certainly should have been part of thorough news coverage. Some would still assume conspiracy, but censoring leads to much greater mistrust of the media and authorities and more deeply rooted misinformation and conspiracy theories. As for the police, they did respond promptly to a report of a social media user threatening to commit a mass shooting, which is good. But can they stop the spread of misinformation on this particular case or any other? I doubt it. They are limited by the laws of the land and can only arrest people for criminal actions. I expect it was a kneejerk reaction that came out of the frustration of trying to conduct an investigation that would be fair to the accused (even though he was among the dead), his family and the victims. In other words, hot air.

Regarding the writing of this piece. It's straightforward and has a point, which is supported. A deeper look at how facebook handles complaints and its 'privacy' agreement might be worth adding. Also some discussion of the impact of the net and social media on the fifth estate and what that means for democratic societies with free speech.
Reply
Flagged as Spam
Hidden by Owner
Flagged as Spam
Hidden by Owner
:iconneji-deidara:
neji-deidara Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
so not to be mean but were u there at the shooting or did you just reseach it online
becuse this is the first time i heard of a secont person and y cant we know his name
Reply
:iconflipswitchmandering:
FlipswitchMANDERING Featured By Owner Dec 21, 2012
sweet dude.

a guy who was their said he saw a second guy get arrested, and news reports said so.

some of you are just so fucking idiotic it is unbelievable.
Reply
Add a Comment: