Transcript from NPR's Talk of the Nation, April 27th, 1999. Topic: Suing parents for the crimes of their kids. "Expert" guests: Marcia Morey, District Court Judge in Durham, North Carolina, & Mimi Wesson, Law Professor at University of Colorado.
Ray: "Erin, thanks a lot for your call. Erin, joining us from Seattle. Joe's next, in Tallahassee."
Joe: "Hey Ray. Clearly the parents were involved in this, in that they aided and abetted their children into getting the information that got them on this wayward path. They bought them the computer, the kids didn't buy the computer, the kids went to the internet, unsupervised, they got hooked up with this, what's called the Holocaustal sect, it was on their links page before that was taken down. But the Holocaustal web page is still up there on the internet, and it talks all about exterminating the Normals and killing the Pinks, and it's a big thing about Pipes and pipe bombs, and try-sexuals, and this sort of stuff- any parent would see it and know that it's bad news. And yet, you know with bartenders, if they see someone that's drinking a lot, they can go ahead and be liable for that. It seems to me that the parents clearly should have the responsibility when they get hooked up with these far-flung cults. I mean, even the name- the Holocaustals, I mean doesn't that tell you something? This is all part of that Church of the SubGenius thing, which is a big deal about, you know, superior mutants and supporting deviant behavior. And now we see the ultimate fruition of that, don't we? When people behave this way, the extreme behavior that can come out of it, and people are responsible, it seems to me that the parents have a clear responsibility in this regard."
Ray: "But I guess Joe, the question is where does it go, where do we cross boundaries from simply feeling that they're responsible, deciding that morally they're responsible, to where they can end up in court?"
Joe: "Well, society-wise, I think we have to kind of ask ourselves, are entertainment and freedom of speech worth... you know, basically getting people killed? This whole Holocaustal thing, they are - they're still going full force! They still have their web pages up, they're having a devival this weekend in Boston! Right this weekend! The bodies aren't even cold in the graves, and they're having some big- what they call a devival, Friday, I think it is, at some restaurant, the Middle East or what not, and they celebrate this type of stuff, to them it's funny! And and, people just stand by, and 'Oh well, we can't do anything about that.' Well, if we can shut down , you know, KKK people from wearing hoods, why can't we stop people who are advocating the same type of behavior, which is lynching and killing people, from plying their craft?"
"Ray": "Who wants to talk to Joe?"
"Expert" Guest: "Well, I'll respond in one way. Joe, you obviously know a lot about some... this cult, and some of these things you've been talking about than I do. I've never heard of these things and it sounds horrifying, by your description. I'm not sure I know enough to sort of concur on all your characterizations, but I do want to say that I agree with you about this: I don't believe the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech, which is a very important foundation of liberty in this country, but I don't believe that it means that people bear no responsibility for the things that they say, the things that they post on a website, the films and videos that they produce, and the things that those productions might prompt someone else to do. I don't think it's right morally to say they have no responsibility, and I don't even think it's right legally to say they have no responsibility. There's a very interesting case that's working it's way toward the United States Supreme Court about the liability of a um, a Boulder based publication that published a hit man manual that was used by an assassin to kill a woman and her son, and I think that's going to put before the court the very important question of whether the first amendment means whether you have a right to speak, but an altogether right to be free from the consequences of speaking. I don't think that you do, and I don't think that the court will say that you do."
Ray: "And Joe brought up a lot of different things,
some of which I've heard of, and some of which I haven't heard of, but....
um, the Church of the SubGenius, um... there's not a lot of harm in them,
and, uh, it's more a joke than anything. It calls itself the world's only
admittedly for profit, non-tax deductible religion, and it's more a spoof
than anything else, but Joe, thanks for your call. We'll go next to Steve,
who's calling from Miami, Florida."
*****
That's all it takes to begin an avalanche of public hysteria. So what are you waiting for? You too can start "dialing for dumb shits"! But please notice that the above "legal experts" agree that freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from responsibility of what your words, web sites, books or films might cause. If you write "Catcher In The Rye" and somebody reads it, then tries to kill the President, you're responsible. If you write, direct, or star in "Taxi Driver", and someone shoots the President, you're to blame. To some, this might seem anti-American, even Orwellian. But look at the BIG PICTURE: We MUST STOP THE VIOLENCE, and if that means we need more laws, less freedoms, and become a more God-fearing country (like Iran), then so be it. At least crime will go down and lives will be saved. And if it saves just ONE LIFE, wouldn't it be worth it? Remember: Quantity of life is always more important than quality of life. For the greater common good. For the children. etc. etc. etc.
*****
The actual sound file of the NPR call-in show can be down loaded from the below address:
http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/totn/19990427.totn.ram
(The fun starts about 20 minutes into the show. Real Audio required)
rev. 5/12/99