| ||||
|
Arts & Entertainment Books Comics Health & Body  MediaMothers Who Think News People Politics2000 Technology - Free Software Project Travel & Food  Columnists
Current Click here to read the latest stories from the wires. - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - Also Today For a full list of today's Salon Media stories, go to the
Media home page. - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon - - - - - - - - - - - - Recently in Salon Media Alt Media Media Alt Media - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Names that live in infamy | page 1, 2
Of course things work differently today. Coerced forgetfulness is out of the question in a free society. Newspapers and journalists would have to participate voluntarily. Instead of suppressing actual facts, which are needed for accountability, good results might be achieved simply by making adjustments in style and presentation. After all, reporters assented, en masse, when Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh asked to be called "Tim" and the Unabomber said "call me Ted" instead of Theodore. If journalists accommodate murderers in this small way -- as a reflex of professional courtesy -- why can't they lean a bit the other direction, after someone is convicted of gross felonies in a court of law? Courts already do have some authority to order name-changes. Suppose that power were widened -- any criminal sentenced for a truly heinous crime could be renamed as part of his punishment, with a moniker that invites disdain. New history books might state: "Robert F. Kennedy was slain in 1968 by Doofus 25 *." The asterisk is there to let anyone find the assassin's former name in a footnote, if they are truly interested, so no one is actually suppressing knowledge. Nevertheless, the emphasis on a new moniker will take hold. Who would choose the new names? Judges could get creative, or the public might be invited to suggest appropriate derogations. However it's done, won't it make sense for ridicule to replace some of the grotesque fashionableness that's now attached to terror? It would reflect society's determination to allocate fame properly, to those who earn it. We would be saying -- "You can't win celebrity this way. By harming innocents, you're only destroying your own name." The idea may seem odd, at first. Maybe even needlessly vindictive. But I promise it will grow more appealing each time the cycle is repeated by some murderous loony who demands our attention with both violence and contempt. Pragmatically speaking, it could contribute to breaking today's vicious feedback loop by denying sociopaths the attention they crave, perhaps even tempting them to seek help. (Help we all- Moreover, this approach to deterrence may give us -- civilization's rambunctious, argumentative, yet cooperative citizens -- the last laugh. We can catch, punish and outlast them, of course. But above all we'll deny villains any chance to win through violence a bigger place in history than the hard-working, creative people they hurt and despise. Who knows? Some of those angry ones out there, who are teetering in indecision with each desperate day, may even decide that it's better to help lay a few bricks, alongside the rest of us, than to claw after infamy by tearing the walls down. If they do -- if they choose to join us -- we should try to welcome them. And learn their names.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer Sound off - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon | |||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
