Murderous Manifestos
Following the 2023 shooting at The Covenant School—which killed three nine-year-old children and three adults— the shooter’s writings were acquired through a search warrant, making the decision of what and when to publish a complicated one impacted both by law enforcement and public records laws. In response, multiple groups, including a state senator, The Tennessean newspaper, and a gun-rights organization, sued for access. On the other hand, The Covenant School, the church that shares its building, and many of the school’s parents want to keep the writings private.
Erin Kinney, mother of one of the murdered children, filed a statement saying that, though she had not seen the killer’s writings, she did not think the documents contained any answers: “I do not believe there was any motivation other than a desire for death, and there is nothing that could ever make the horrible act of killing children make sense… The public release of these writings will not prevent the next attack..”
It has long been argued that perpetrators of mass violence are seeking notoriety. It is subsequently argued that by, for example, posting not only the names and faces of killers, but also their writings, they are given their desired notoriety, and thus potential copycats are emboldened. Additionally, some argue that care for the victims and their families should be paramount, and that we shouldn’t cause further harm to them and give them the right to control what happens to the information in questions. However, both of these concerns are often countered by noting that in many cases the information is in the public interest and giving victims the right to prevent the publication of a shooter’s writings is deeply damaging to the public.
This case, of course, draws parallels to many similar cases. For example, killers such as Elliot Rodger and Ted Kaczynski have acquired small yet strong followings online; their manifestos have become influential within their respective niches and have had significant ripple effects across the culture.
There were also similar arguments over the journals of the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, although that time the roles were reversed, as families connected to the Columbine school were arguing in favor of the publication of relevant writings, audio, and video, as they believed local government officials were engaged in a cover-up; in the Covenant case, by contrast, it is the aggrieved families arguing in favor of restricting public access to information.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
What degree of control over the publication of sensitive information is licensed to the grieving families of victims of violence?
When, if ever, are government officials morally permitted/required to restrict public information in order to shape the public discourse?
What are members of the public owed information-wise in cases of immense public interest?
EXPLORE MORE CONTEXT
Article
Article