On November 18, 2015, the Columbine Massacre RPG video game
maker, Danny Ledonne, was not allowed to attend the film festival at Colorado
Adams State University. They did not let him attend the festival because the
university felt that he was considered unsafe and a threat to the university.
Adams state came out saying that “the game is about shooting students” and that
is why they felt it would be unsafe to bring him to a college campus. This
video game is said to recreate the terrible event of a high school shooting
that once took place. When trying to decide if they should let this man come to
the festival, there were many avenues people had to consider. The letter
banning him said, “In this post – Columbine, hypersensitive world of mass
shootings and violence on college campus’ nationwide, it is my duty to balance
the free speech and individual rights against the public safety of the many.
Although, Mr. Ledonne’s behavior has not yet breached the realm of violation of
our laws, my recommendation to ban him from campus is sound, rational and errs
on the side of public safety” (arstechnica.com)
Ledonne
ended up responding to this by saying that his “goal in creating the game it to
help everyday audiences understand the world of the killers because in doing
so, we might move closer to understanding and reaching actual solutions to the
ongoing epidemic of school shootings” (arstechnica.com)
For these
reasons, the school was worried about the safety of their students if this man
was to come to campus and attend their film festival. Although he claims not to
be violent and that he is just trying to express what he believes would help
create solutions to stop these violent shootings and killings in schools across
the nation.
Lewis
mentions in his book on free expression that, “the constitutional right of free
expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours.
It is designed to intend to remove governmental restraints from the area of
public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced
largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of each freedom will
ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more polity in the belief that
no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and
choice upon which our political system rests” (Lewis pg 132). This passage can
relate to this situation because although there has not been a governmental
restraint to this video game and it indirectly is free speech since he is not
physically hurting or killing anyone, some may argue that he is just using his
right to try to help society. Others can argue that it could potentially
threaten the safety of the college campus as people could then get ideas from
his video game, even though that was not the intention of his game. This was a
very controversial issue that involved campus threats of free expression.
No comments:
Post a Comment