The writings of the person who killed three 9-year-olds and three adults at a private Christian elementary school in Nashville last year cannot be released to the public, a judge ruled Thursday.

Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea Myles found that The Covenant School children and parents hold the copyright to any writings or other works created by shooter Audrey Hale, a former student who was killed by police. As part of the effort to keep the records closed, Hale’s parents transferred ownership of Hale’s property to the victims’ families, who then argued in court that they should be allowed to determine who has access to them.

Myles agreed, ruling that “the original writings, journals, art, photos and videos created by Hale” are subject to an exception to the Tennessee Public Records Act created by the federal Copyright Act.

The shooter left behind at least 20 journals, a suicide note and a memoir, according to court filings. When the records requests were denied, several parties sued, and the situation quickly ballooned into a messy mix of conspiracy theories, leaked documents, probate battles and accusations of ethical misconduct. Myles’ order will almost surely be appealed.

62 points

Good.

We don’t need to feed Christianity’s martyr complex.

Just an endless search for justifications to be the victim. An endless desire to be the victim.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

If the killer’s parents were approached by Fox/TMZ who wanted to turn just a few pages into some whacko documentary, would it be right to withhold the rest of the lunatic ramblings?

IDK how to feel about this, just know it’s weird

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I know exactly how to feel about this- we shouldn’t be promoting the writings of a mass murderer. We should forget his name and just remember his victims.

And it seems like the parents of those victims agree.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

The victims families own the copyright, not the killers parents.

They transferred ownership to the victims families so anyone looking to make money off of it would be paying the victims families.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

I’m wondering about precedent. With my “if”, think “how would courts rule if in a future case …” or “how would we feel …”

(commented a little more in this thread as well)

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

The article states that the parents signed over the killer’s estate to the victims’ parents.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Which is why this case might feel fair to plenty of people. If you’re allowed to sign over an estate, though, and you sign it over to someone with a profit motive, maybe you’re allowed to essentially sell evidence the public is normally entitled to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Writings should be released to expose their motive. The judge could put an order any money made be given to the family. But the public is mature enough to read it.

Edit: Hollywood pumps out movies constantly with war and gun violence themes but suddenly we’re not mature enough to handle this? Or is it the writing of a bullied trans kid that bothers them so much? Well now we won’t know.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

You’re missing the point entirely. Releasing the material was, presumptively, part of the shooters motivation. Increasing the notoriety of the perpetrator. Releasing the material would validate the shooters motives and encourage copycats. I don’t know why you would think that’s not enough.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

How is this different from any other shooting where there is a manifesto left behind? This is nothing new and it is very common that they are released very shortly after the shooting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
  1. It’s becoming less and less common. Stephen Paddocks motives weren’t released til 3 years or so later. If the Uvalde shooter had one it wasn’t released. Anything known about the Newtown shooter was found by journalists way later. The rest happen when the killer is still alive.

  2. This is the only case that I know of where the killers writings are under control of the victims families.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Presumptively

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

It is material was reviewed by a judge, the shooters family and the victims families. If you want to say it’s presumptively a manifesto and not almost definitely a manifesto. Then use that distinction to rationalize your point, congratulations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

It’s not about the public’s ‘rights’ tho. It’s about the victims’ families and their rights … which in this case the judge decided on the side of the families.

I for one am glad of that because it gives the families at least some sense of control over a situation they originally had zero control over.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Gun regulation is control which is declined.

A judge Giving away first amendment rights seems wrong. Making an “exception” to a law made specifically for this.

Seems to me it would only be blocked if it was embarrassing. Everyone in the shooters life could’ve failed them because they’re ’good Christian’s’. The kid could’ve also been insane but now we won’t know will we.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Ok. So how would you personally benefit from the killer’s writings being publically released?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

this sounds like ai generated bs for the onion but goddamn if we haven’t arrived lol jesus

permalink
report
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 392K

    Comments