By Jayson Jarmon, CEO, Lux Worldwide
In an interesting Chicago Sun-Times article published yesterday, columnist Richard Roeper writes about the recent hanging of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. While Roeper describes the video as "chilling" and "crude," he also points out that the video is "kinda cool in a dark and vengeful way ... [seeing the] S.O.B. literally hanging by his neck..."
Roeper uses the article to support his viewpoint that all executions should public and that the television networks should broadcast them. He further points out that the Saddam hanging video is available on the Internet (which he describes as the "ultimate network").
Politics aside, it is odd to see a play-by-play review of an execution video publicly reviewed by a movie critic in a major American paper (yes, this is the "Ebert and Roeper" Richard Roeper). It is odder still to see someone who enjoys seeing this video and is willing to talk about it.
The Internet, as I've mentioned before, is all about choice, and free expression should be a cherished goal for all Americans. But there is a dark side to free speech as well-the proverbial shout of "Fire!" in a crowded theater, instructions for making your own hydrogen bomb, misleading links to potential child molesters, and yes, graphic images of violence.
How many times have you hesitated before clicking on a link? Do you ever have anxiety over what you are going to see when you select that video on YouTube? Will the content and the images you come across in your day-to-day surfing be appropriate at work and for your family?
There are those who would censor (the television networks and the print media do so on a daily basis), but it is to no avail: the information will become available via the Internet faster, as Roeper points out, than you can say "Drudge Report."
The Internet requires personal responsibility and asks the user to make the tough calls about what is or is not appropriate. We need to moderate our curiosity with our own sense of taste and decorum-no one is going to do that for us anymore.
As far as Roeper's desire to see more of such fare on television and in the papers, I welcome his opinion and agree that content should be freely available to all those who want to see it. For myself, I can think of nothing more monstrous than enjoying repeated viewings of a man dying, whoever he is.
