[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: First of all, I don't recall any books by Stephen King written in "first person" style...where he is outlining a plan for himself and unnamed colleagues to commit the murder of several people he has decided he doesn't like.

There are plenty of authors who write in the first person (HG Wells's 'The Time Machine', for example), so this is really a matter of creative taste - as for the subject matter, it's just that - subject matter.[/QUOTE]Gosh, I don't remember H.G. Well's talking about killing his peers and destroying public buildings. I guess I better go back and re-read The Time Machine since I apparantly missed that part.

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Secondly, Stephen King's books have always been written and submitted for publication, not kept hidden on some computer file and discovered accidentally by a third party.

Stephen King happened to be a talented author with the drive to get his work published - less confident and/or 'good' authors may not have the same luck - so should we lock them up because they write 'boring' pieces that publishers won't touch?[/QUOTE]Actually, I read an article once stating that Stephen King had basically given up on his career as an author due to the many rejections he received. In frustration, he threw the manuscript for his newest story in the trash. It was his wife who recovered the manuscript and convinced him to give it one more try....and that manuscript became his first published novel.

Still, even with his vaunted success, I would dare say that if Stephen King decided to suddenly switch from stories of the supernatural and write a novel in first person where he and several associates are planning to assassinate the President of the United States and blow up the White House...even HE would have trouble getting printed (and he would probably receive a visit from the Secret Service regarding his sudden change in writing style). As you said, it all centers on the subject matter, and the fact is there are some subjects that simply aren't wise to write about - especially in the fashion in which Brian Robertson did it.

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I agree the felony charge is completely over the top, but let's look at this from a different perspective. Suppose - just for the sake of argument - that Brian Robertson HAD been planning to carry out this "fictional" attack on his school. Let us also suppose that this story of his wasn't discovered until after that attack had occurred.....What would be the general reaction if it suddenly became known that this kid who blew up the school and killed the senior class president (among others) had written a story on the school's own computer several months earlier detailing these exact events? There would be harsh criticism of the authorities in general (and the school system more particularly) for "ignoring obvious evidence" that was right in front of thier faces.

Pick up several teenage diaries and I can guarantee that at least 30% of them will contain references of bad thought and bad deeds that they want to carry out - that's just being a teenager. Writing is often a way of releasing pent up anger - it in no way means that the person will acutally commit the acts that he/she describes. All healthy stuff of kids.[/QUOTE]I agree with you on this point. Writing can be a healthy means of release for teenagers and certainly not all teenagers that entertain these "dark thoughts" actually plan to act on them. But the law which Robertson broke was put into place specifically as a reaction to Columbine, where two affluent teens plotted for over a year to massacre several students. These plans were detailed in their journals and on their home PC's. When all of these "signs" were found after the fact, there was a public outcry. "Why didn't the parents and teachers notice the danger signs?" "How could these teens plot such a horrible act for over a year without anybody learning about it?" This led to cries for laws to prevent such acts in the future. Of course, the history of any such law has been a huge overreaction in the way it was applied. Because of the multiple school attacks, ALL weapons were banned from school grounds...this led to cases of children being expelled or suspended from school for bringing a butter knife in their lunch to spread jelly on their sandwich. Many schools adopted a "Zero Tolerance" policy regarding drug use...this led to students being suspended for bring asthma medicine to school and one youngster was charged with "intent to distribute" when he offered a classmate a Tylenol for his headache.

A preventative law - by necessity - must be broad in nature. Unfortunately, this inevitably leads to innocents being punished as well as those who actually planned to use drugs, or bring real knives to school, or to actually go on a shooting spree due to the frustration and angst they feel.

Originally posted by Skunk: This is about administering first aid to a gunshot would without asking why the victim got shot in the first place. It would be more effective to have stricter gun controls, train the teachers (and parents) to better notice the signs of teenage-angst, employ councellors to help kids get through those wild-hormone induced depression/anger and so on - of course that does cost more money than a simple law that locks up everyone who even considers a bad act...

And it's a lot easier to blame the government for everything rather than expect an individual to accept responsibility for their actions or poor judgement.

Calling for stricter gun laws is just as reactionary as the law Brian Robertson was arrested under. It's nothing more than a different colored bandaid applied to the same gunshot wound after the fact...and it is no more effective at preventing or eliminating the root cause of the problem. All of the guns used in the various school attacks were (TTBOMK) legally owned.

Training teachers to recognize teenage angst goes without saying, and occurs every year. In addition to the formal training and workshops teachers attend, they get tons of on-the-job experience. Training parents is an impossible task..because then you have the government interfering in the private lives of citizens.

As for the counselors, school systems now require ALL Guidance Counselors to have a Masters Degree in Counseling and two years experience before applying for the job. In fact, the Guidnace Counselor has to meet stricter requirements than the teachers do. I know this because I applied for a Guidance Counselor position at a local high school at the end school year back in May. While I think I would make a wonderful counselor, I unfortunately don't have the necessary education or experience. So our school systems are far more serious about having qualified counselors available than they used to be.

So - as you can see - these other "costly measures" are in place and are being pursued by various school systems across the country.