Thursday, April 15, 1999 1:16 PM
On December 1st, 1997, Michael Carneal, 14, broke into his neighbor's home,
stole guns and ammunition, then wrapped them in a blanket and snuck them
into his school. Once there, he took one of them, a .22 target pistol, and
fired 10 to 12 shots point-blank into a crowd during a voluntary prayer
service. Three girls were killed, and 5 others wounded (2 of them
paralyzed). The shooter claimed not to know why he did any of it.
The parents of the three slain girls are now suing a number of computer game
companies, two internet porn sites, and the makers and distributors of the
movie "The Basketball Diaries". Their claim against the movie is that its
scenes of school violence "influenced" Michael Carneal to commit the
killings. The same charge is leveled against the pornographic sites,
because of the "sexually violent material" it contained. Computer game
companies, however, not only influenced Carneal with scenes of violence and
mayhem, but apparently also trained him to be an lethal killer. The
attorney for the plaintiffs says that Michael had only been to a firing
range once, but it was his playing of these first-person shooters than made
him "a marksman of the Army's highest rating". "We intend to hurt
Hollywood. We intend to hurt the video game industry. We intend to hurt sex
porn sites," said one of the lawyers on the case.
No matter which way you look at it, this is a ridiculous lawsuit. The
charges of these parents are plainly nullified when you actually explore the
facts of the case. "The Basketball Diaries", like many movies nowadays, has
violence. And like many movies, it is rated R. The movie ratings are
Hollywood's only real ability to keep graphic films from being viewed by
those who are not emotionally mature enough to handle their content. The
only way that a 14 year-old boy should be able to see such a film is when
accompanied by a parent or guardian. Somewhere along the line, the parents
either granted this privilege or it was circumvented by a deliberate act of
subterfuge. Who, then, is responsible for its undue "influence" on a 14
year-old boy? The people who made it and said that 14 year-olds should not
see it, or the parents who ignored that message? Personally, I very much
doubt that a movie was in any way responsible for this tragedy, but anyone
who insists that it is can only point the finger in one direction.
The same plain reasoning can be applied to the internet sites named in the
suit. Who doesn't know that the internet contains a lot of disturbing
information that may not be appropriate for a 14 year-old? Yet Michael
Carneal was apparently given unrestricted access to the content of the
internet, with no monitoring software such as NetNanny, etc. I doubt highly
that Michael paid for the computer, phone line, and internet access that
allowed him to view the images that are blamed for his aberrant behavior.
Who, then, did? The parents, again. Again and again it has been publicly
acknowledged that filtering content is the responsibility of the parents,
and if they are not up to the task, it is their job to either stop access
completely or accept the consequences of their decision. Again, in no way
do I believe that images on a computer could result in a shooting rampage.
If you do, then it is obvious who should be held responsible.
I could repeat the same defense for computer game companies, but I'd rather
address the idea that playing Quake could possibly make someone an expert
marksman. Anyone who's ever played the game and shot a gun could tell you
that this is the biggest load of horse shit they've ever heard. I have and
I am. Moving a crosshair on a screen and pushing a button does not actually
relate to the process of shooting a gun in the least bit. It does not teach
you the proper sight alignment of lining up the front and rear sights. No
game that I've ever seen does. Nor do they show you the proper way to place
a trigger against your finger, or to pull it back in a consistent, fluid
motion. One of the attorneys for this suit even admits that Michael had
been to a shooting range once, but even so that doesn't exclude training or
practice while out hunting or other activity. Even so, if he had received
training in a shooting course, would we then blame the trainers for making
him a "lethal killer"? What kind of message is that to send? "You can
teach people how to perform a task, as long as they do not use it for evil."
Do we sue the Army for making an effective marksman out of the soldier who
takes his rifle to a hilltop and fires on his fellow soldiers as they
perform their exercises? What kind of unreasonable burden is that placing
on any group that informs and teaches? Next thing you know, we'll be
prosecuting the teachers who taught programming the creator of a destructive
virus. But I'm straying from the point, which is the utterly ludicrous idea
that playing a game with a mouse or a joystick can teach someone how to
shoot (some of the games mentioned don't even have guns in them).
Maybe we should start blaming the people who commit violent acts instead of
everybody else in the world. In the end, no one has complete control over the
actions of another.
The frivolous nature of this lawsuit is further compounded when you realize
that this is the parents' and attorneys' second attempt to lash out blindly
in any direction. The first suit included 19 school administrators and
teachers plus 5 of Carneal's fellow students. Sure, why pick and choose
your defendants when you can simply include everybody? The fact that
defendants were dropped quickly by the judge is an anomaly. It is simply
too easy to sue, too difficult (and expensive) to defend, and nearly
impossible to be compensated for your legal fees after defeating a frivolous
lawsuit. Our civil justice system has degraded and decayed into a process
of legal extortion, where it is usually far easier and cheaper to settle
than to fight, no matter how strong the evidence is in your favor. Action
must be taken, and the system needs to be reformed.
|