Editorial: Striking a balance between access and censorship … – Virginian-Pilot

STEVE STEPHENS barbarity in Cleveland on Easter Sunday certainly wasnt the first time onlookers witnessed a slaying an execution, actually in real time.

Go back to 1963, two days after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. TV cameras rolled as authorities walked his suspected killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, in the basement of Dallas police headquarters. Millions saw Jack Ruby jump in front of Oswald and fire a handgun, mortally wounding him. A reporter at the scene described Oswald as ashen and unconscious as rescuers loaded him into an ambulance.

The decades-old footage was a shocking coincidence of action, timing and broadcasting.

Whats different a half-century later? Murderers intend to film themselves live, or nearly so, on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms. They aim to make a statement, no matter how twisted. They sometimes pick victims at random.

Stephens did just that in targeting 74-year-old Robert Godwin, who was walking on a Cleveland street searching for aluminum cans. Stephens shot Godwin after asking him about Joy Lane, Stephens former girlfriend; his video later showed a trail of blood beside the prone Godwin, a retired foundry worker.

Stephens killed himself Tuesday in Pennsylvania as law enforcement authorities tried to arrest him.

Suspects or accomplices frequently have taken videos of slayings and other violent crimes. They are testimonials in many respects, even if delusional and amoral. Facebook, with its nearly 2 billion users, provides an easily accessible platform for these dark messages:

Vester Flanagan, a former reporter at the CBS affiliate in Roanoke, killed a station reporter and cameraman and wounded a third person during a live televised interview in Moneta, Va., in August 2015. A few hours later, Flanagan (who used the on-air name Bryce Williams) posted a video to Twitter and Facebook from the shooters vantage point, showing him approaching his victims, gun in hand. Flanagan shot and killed himself as police closed in on him the same day.

Chicago police said a 15-year-old girl was allegedly sexually assaulted last month in an incident involving several people. It was streamed on Facebook Live and viewed by dozens of people.

What responsibility do social media companies have? What should they do? Local academics caution that these officials must seek balance. They dont want to be accused of censorship but should work to keep gratuitous violence off our screens.

They also point to compelling, dramatic narratives that have aired. That includes the footage taken by the girlfriend of Philando Castile shortly after he was shot during a traffic stop in July 2016 by a police officer near St. Paul, Minn. The officer faces manslaughter and other charges in the case.

If social media organizations censor footage based merely on the suspicions of the intent of posters, doing so may itself be unethical, said Nikhil Moro, professor and chairman of the Mass Communications and Journalism Department at Norfolk State University.

There are limits in trying to crack down what we view, said Yuping Liu-Thompkins, professor and chairwoman of marketing at Old Dominion Universitys Strome College of Business. Given the sheer volume of content, Im not sure we can have the scrutiny, she said.

Money is a part of the calculations, too: The New York Times reports that Facebook Live has been embraced by users and advertisers. Video advertising commands a premium compared with traditional photo and text formats, The Times reports.

Facebook released a statement from Justin Osofsky, vice president of global operations, saying the Easter shooting in Cleveland has no place on Facebook, and goes against our policies and everything we stand for.

We disabled the suspects account within 23 minutes of receiving the first report about the murder video, he said, and two hours after receiving a report of any kind. But we know we need to do better.

On that, no one disagrees. But Facebook should have foreseen that some individuals would corrupt the live video option. Violent, deranged people will take advantage of whatevers at hand. Such depictions might be only a small fraction of the posts, but they have an outsize effect because Facebook is so ubiquitous.

As such, Facebook must lead the way in discussing where the line should be drawn between free expression and cracking down on certain images. Users expect better, and narcissistic criminals will continue to exploit that service until companies such as Facebook can deliver.

Go here to see the original:
Editorial: Striking a balance between access and censorship ... - Virginian-Pilot