Desilet Editorial: Not Necessarily Censorship

Guest Opinion: Boulder Daily Camera.com
Not Necessarily "Censorship"

Having been handed final authority by the Colorado Supreme Court, Jefferson County Sheriff Ted Mink announced on June 19 that he would not release video and audio tapes made by the Columbine High School killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

Public interest in the Columbine tapes has always been high for a number of reasons. Some parents of the Columbine victims want the tapes released because they believe that the contents, however shocking, will help identify the potential symptoms of destructive aggression in teenagers, raise parental awareness, and ultimately contribute to the prevention of similar violence.

Moreover, a recent editorial in the Daily Camera argues that "Copycats won't be stopped by censorship" and goes on to point out that "in a free and open society, there will always be mounds of material than can be—and will be—used as a guide and an inspiration by demented souls."

Others, including the FBI and the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, want the tapes permanently sequestered because of content they believe will increase the likelihood of copycat violence—content that includes detailed instructions for planning similar violence along with the expression of attitudes of contempt and hatred that would encourage it.

The Denver Post, which initiated legal action to get the tapes released, has indicated it does not want a full release of the tapes, but rather limited access for researchers, academics and educators.

There does not appear to be any middle ground for release of the tapes. Under the state open-records law, the tapes, if released, must be made available to everyone and must also be available for copying. This situation raises the question: Is sealing the Columbine tapes censorship or healthy regulation?

History shows that filmmakers have taken cues from real-life serial killers ("Psycho" and "Silence of the Lambs") while other real-life killers have taken cues from films (Michale Anderson, for example, from "A Clockwork Orange" and John Hinckley from "Taxi Driver"). A creative, and some might say perverse, filmmaker could take a cue from the Columbine tragedy and make a film based on these events, including the "basement tapes," and thereby largely defeat Sheriff Mink's intentions. Such a film could perhaps inspire copycat violence in a way similar to what has been claimed for the "basement tapes." Is there any point in attempting to control criminal-justice materials in a "free and open society"—especially when these records often provide the basis for various media productions?

Answering this question requires understanding the potential effects of media productions on consumers. This is admittedly a difficult task. I have spent more than a decade studying the effects of media violence on consumers and, while the subject is difficult to summarize here, I must agree that a significant risk exists in the case of the Columbine tapes. Most will grant, as does the Daily Camera editorial, that the Columbine tapes may indeed be potentially harmful in their effects on certain potential viewers in ways that may result in copycat violence.

In a free and open society the principle of censorship, in the abstract, is abhorrent. But the social realities are clear. Everything, including speech, that poses a potential danger to members of an unevenly informed, unevenly stable, and sometimes unassuming public ought to be submitted to some degree of scrutiny and potential regulation. Under certain circumstances the effects some products have on consumers, even where involving perhaps only a small minority, can be fairly certain and sufficiently deadly to warrant regulation.

In the pharmaceutical industry, for example, a drug such as Vioxx was pulled from the market for precisely this reason. Sheriff Mink was informed by the FBI that the Columbine tapes could, with a high degree of certainty, produce extremely violent copycat effects among a small minority of the general population. Due in large measure to this information, he made the decision to prevent the Columbine tapes from reaching the public marketplace.

Given the current law, this appears to be the only form of regulation available. The fact that this decision resembles censorship should not incline us to confuse this action with censorship. As a society, we need to take a hard look at the difference between censorship and forms of regulation and be flexible enough to at least include media in the discussion of regulation—even if that immerses us in a complex and difficult discussion.

Gregory Desilet is the author of "Our Faith in Evil: Melodrama and the Effects of Entertainment Violence" (McFarland Press, 2005). He lives in Longmont. For more information about the effects of media and entertainment violence: www.gregorydesilet.com