If Only the Media Showed Self-Control

 

There has been proof that these mass shootings cause more mass shootings. They are almost contagious as if it were a virus spreading throughout the population, particularly the youth. Another item we know is that there is the notoriety aspect. Perpetrate a mass shooting and instantly your name is shot around the entirety of the media, you are on every televisions screen and your name is in every newspaper and magazine. Sure, you might spend the next twenty-years or possibly less in prison, but you are now famous. That is the one side which the world can control. Where is my evidence of this? Well, how about what the Oregon shooter who we will not name wrote, “A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. … Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.” Then the Fort Hood shooter noted and posted on Facebook, from the same article, “These bastards have perfected their way of attacking by studying previous massacres to gain publicity and their minute of fame as a villain.” In the article, Mona Charen referred to a website which supports the same idea we will explore, it is called No Notoriety and puts forth the simple concept that if the media would leave these names out of their reports and the cases were tried with no media allowed and a closed courtroom, then the big name aspect would be gone, no notoriety, no motive, no fame thus one large reason taken away.

 

That would be one great way to take a bite out of these shootings. Will it end these mass shootings? Unfortunately, this only addresses one aspect and there are so many other reasons starting and not ending with but including mental illness, pure hatred, depression, drug abuse and all the other reasons which drives these shooters. Still, if these shooters are denied any notoriety, then we will likely and fortunately have less of these events. Removing one driving motivation is and always will be on the plus side of the equation. Whatever society can do to take away one reason driving the school and other mass shootings is to the benefit of society. The problem is the media would claim that it is the right of the people to be given news, all the news and any attempt to limit or silence the media from reporting every iota of any and every news story would be the start of the slippery slope to censorship of the news and an end to the First Amendment protections. Of course, this is the same media which shows absolutely no reservations to restrictions of the Second Amendment in order to presumably to bring an end to the same mass shootings. So, apparently, according to the media, it is just wonderful and cool to erase the entirety of the Second Amendment but the First Amendment is sacrosanct. Perhaps they are unaware that the entireties of the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments, are all protected by the Second Amendment. Further, nobody is trying to silence the media; there is simply a request for self-control when reporting on mass shootings. The other way of preventing the media from reporting these names, the authorities need to control their release to the media of these names and the trials should be kept under gag orders silencing the opportunity for the names to be made public. What would be the last resort would be for judges to intervene and impose a gag order silencing the media and everybody else from reporting the names even if they managed to become known. The problem with this idea is the foreign media would have a field day reporting the names and would work overtime to get the names of every shooter just to scoop the American media. Once the European media would release the names, there would be no way of continuing to prevent reporting of the names in the United States as they would just be quoting the foreign media claiming according to foreign reports, the shooter was identified as John Doe.

 

Various Firearms

 

But there is another solution to the school shootings which the left will scream bloody murder rather than listen to reason. The NRA’s Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has repeatedly stated, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” Israel had a mass school shooting back in 1974 when terrorists attacked a school in Maalot. Israel took the novel approach and armed teachers, in particular, IDF reservists from the infantry teachers who were trained in firearms. They also offered those teachers who desired training the necessary classes and proficiencies before arming them as well. As reported in Arutz Sheva in an article titled, “Israel proves the NRA’s arguments,” they tell all about this and other means Israel has faced violence and defeated it through armed civilians including bring the Stabbing Intifada to an end by simply requesting that all Israelis with legal right to carry weapons, do so and protect the peace. Israel took the opposite route to eliminate violence perpetrated against its schools and as a threat on her streets, she decided to give the innocent protection by arming citizens who had military training or those who had received training in firearms and they became the arm of keeping order which could be places where the military or police were not. This added the fact that now a terrorist or other perpetrator could not tell simply by looking around for police or military personnel and seeing a clear coast know that they would be the only armed individual and thus in control as any civilian might be equally armed and there may even be multiple people armed to respond in preventing a terror attack or other crimes, particularly shootings and with armed teachers, especially in the Israeli schools. Terrorists have reported to police that they more often will attack Haredi Jews because of there being less of a chance for them to be carrying weapons. That is an example of how effective arming the populace can be and should be a warning to the Haredi that they might want to change the equation which makes them a greater target for crimes and terror attacks.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The Israeli Supreme Court and the Arab Test

A small storm brewed over the swearing in ceremony of the new Israeli Supreme Court President, Judge Asher Grunis, when at the conclusion of the ceremony one of the Supreme Court Justices refused to sing the Israeli National Anthem, Hatikvah. The judge in question is the sole Arab justice in the Israeli Supreme Court, Judge Salim Jubran. This sparked sharp reactions both calling for Judge Salim Jubran’s head to the other extreme insisting it was within his rights under freedom of speech. Israel does not have an actual constitution and uses a core set referred to as the basic laws as a theoretical framework for governance. This means that in Israel free speech is not codified within the law but has been an accepted right by the majority of the people and government, though there have been occasional debates on exactly how far free speech should be allowed before something is truly out of bounds. The refusal of a Supreme Court Judge to participate in the singing of the Israeli National Anthem sparked exactly this debate.

 

What was somewhat peculiar about this particular case was the divide between those who supported the right of Judge Jubran and those calling for his resignation did not follow any particular political lines. Where there were the expected nationalist and some religious politicians who called for censure or demanded resignation, one also found others from these same camps joining with the voices of the liberal camp in vociferously protecting the right for him to not sing the National Anthem. One point which was central to the argument is the fact that Hatikvah is, in part, themed about the hope of the Jewish people to return to their homeland after a lengthy exile. While this is expressed, no part of Hatikvah suggests in any way, shape, or form to belittle or restrict any others from sharing in the freedoms and rights of an Israeli citizen. Hatikvah is an expression of hope and rejoicing in the coming of the promised return which the sages have always held would come and had been the central hope of prayers over the centuries spent in the Diaspora. The song specifically mentions Zion and Jerusalem as being the promised lands where the Jews were returning to practice their Judaism as had been the Jewish heritage before the Roman conquest and scattering of the Jews.

 

What was of particular note in this entire affair was the complete lack of coverage by the mainstream press outside of Israel. This was peculiar as usually anything which stirs even the slightest controversy, especially if it is between the Jews and the Arabs, is immediately spread across the front pages of the news in Europe and the United States and it drives complete hours and often days of debate over what the significance of the controversy could have on the “Peace Process”. Yet, here we have a debate over the rights of an Arab to conscientiously decline to sing Hatikvah, the Israeli National Anthem, as part of an official event where the person in question is a member of the Israeli Supreme court. What could be a better set of circumstances than to have an Arab who is a sitting Justice of the Israeli Supreme court in a discourse over whether or not he has the right to refuse to sing the county’s National Anthem when it is part of an official function of the Supreme Court. I have my theories on why this was not covered throughout the world and instead completely and utterly ignored by the mainstream press. To cover this story one would be forced to admit and even emphasize that the Israeli Supreme Court has as one of its Justices an Arab Judge sitting on the bench. To give such coverage to an Arab Supreme Court Justice on the Israeli Supreme Court might become a significant story in a completely separate way, namely that the Arab Israelis truly do have the same rights and privileges as a Jewish Israeli even to the point of serving on the Israeli Supreme Court. A story such as this would put to lie to all the previous stories which were slanted in order to give the impression that Israel was an apartheid state which refused to give their Arab citizens equal rights and treatment under the law. The entire apartheid myth would come crashing down and the truth would have been exposed had this story reached the general public, and when it comes to Israel the press cannot allow the truth to get in the way of their continuous damnation of the Jewish State. Maybe this case of the rights being upheld for an Arab Justice who sits on the Israeli Supreme Court not being covered is not so mysterious after all.

 

Beyond the Cusp