Coming
Soon!
From Common Courage Press
Recent
Stories
June
6, 2003
David
Krieger
The Big Lie
Ramzy
Baroud
Sharon and the Myth of the Peacemakers
Anthony
Gancarski
Sharansky: "Crucifixion is a Privilege"
Sam
Hamod
His Own Little Country
Sean Carter
Why Indict Martha Stewart and Not Ken Lay?
David
Lindorff
Cracks in the Consensus
Stew Albert
Ari's Great Set
Elaine
Cassel
Ashcroft the Insatiable
June
5, 2003
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Pools of Fire: The Looming Nuclear
Nightmare in the Woods of North Carolina
Imraan
Siddiqi
Ann Coulter's Foul Mouth
Michael
Leon
Clinton, Reno & Waco: Remember What They've Done
Robert
Jensen
Texas Pledge Law Undermines Democracy
Ann Harrison
Rosenthal is Free, But the Fight isn't Over
Paul
Dean
How You Can Be Deliriously Happy in the Age of Bush
Gary Leupp
When Spooks Speak Out
Website
of the Day
Evidence in Black and White?
June
4, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Federal Judge Blinks; Rosenthal
Walks
Lisa
Walsh Thomas
The Isaiah Crowd: The Threat of Neo-Christianity
Jason
Leopold
Manufacturing the Iraq War
John Chuckman
Blackmail as Policy
Mazin
Qumsiyeh
Summit: Peace or Pretense?
Issam Nashashibi
Sharon's Sword of Damocles
Steve
Perry
Wolfowitz of Arabia: the VF interview transcript
June
3, 2003
Chris
Floyd
Copycat Killers: Bush, Jakarta and
the Slaughter in Aceh
Jason
Leopold
Wolfowitz Tells All
Elaine
Cassel
We Interrupt Your Normal Show to Bring You an Important Message
from Michael Powell: "Go to Hell, Americans!"
Tom
Crumpacker
The Politics of US Cuba Policy
William
S. Lind
Fourth Generation Warfare in Iraq
Sam
Hamod
The Final Brick in the Wall
Uri
Avnery
The Altalena Affair
Hammond
Guthrie
Stepping into Some Deep DARPA
Steve
Perry
The WashTimes'
al-Qaeda nuke "exclusive"
June
2, 2003
Arundhati
Roy
Day of the Jackals
Norman
Madarasz
Behind the Neo-Con Curtain: Plato,
Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom
Alain
Frachon and Daniel Vernet
The Strategist and the Philosopher: Strauss and Wohlstetter
Anthony
Gancarski
Anti-Imperialism, Then & Now
Standard
Schaefer
Wasted at the Pentagon
Jason
Leopold
Rocky's Advice to the Dems
Guthrie
& Albert
HUAC 58 Years Letter
Steve
Perry
The Politics of Terror Alerts
May
31, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
A Whiner Called Horowitz
Gary Leupp
The Frauds of War
Dave
Lindorff
Clinton, Bush, Lies and Impeachment
Tom Stephens
Does It Matter that the Bush Administration Lied?
Sasan
Fayazmanesh
Who Is Next?
Joanne
Mariner
Trivializing Terrorism
Wayne
Madsen
Ayatollah Ashcroft's Busy Week
Larry Magnuson
Is a Television a Radio or a Billboard?
Elaine
Cassel
Wake Up, America!
Gila Svirsky
Waiting for the Lament to End
Susan
Davis
Kitchen Dreams
Chris Clarke
Barbra Streisand: Environmental Hypocrite
Chris
Floyd
Bush Locates Source of World Evil: God
Adam Engel
Gravity's End Zone
Poets'
Basement
Reiss, Guthrie, Orloski, Albert
May
30, 2003
Ben
Tripp
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Agenda
Neve
Gordon
The Bad Fence
Todd
Steiner
Endangered Ocean
Robert
Freeman
Bush's Tax Cuts: a Form of National Insanity
Sean
Carter
Utah Gets Fired Up for Executions
Daniel
Bacher
How Bush's War Violated International Laws
Tariq
Ali
Re-Colonizing Iraq
Steve
Perry
Bush Wars
Web Log
May
29, 2003
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Jason
Leopold
Despite Thin Intelligence Reports,
US Plans Overthrow of Iran Regime
Ron
Jacobs
Popular Uprising, Inc.
Michelle
Ciaccorra
Bush's Nuclear Policy: Do As I Say, Not As I Do
Yves Engler
The Economics of Health Care in
America: Pay More to Die Sooner
Kimberly
Blaker
Vouchers for Jesus
Harry
Browne
Stakeknife: Britain's Army Spy at
the Top of the IRA
Stew
Albert
Cops of the World
Steve Perry
Greens 04: In or Out?
Hot Stories
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Elaine
Cassel
Civil Liberties
Watch
Michel
Guerrin
Embedded Photographer Says: "I
Saw Marines Kill Civilians"
Uzma
Aslam Khan
The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War:
What America Says Does Not Go
Paul de Rooij
Arrogant
Propaganda
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
June
7, 2003
Murder and "The Matrix"
Has the Movie
Caused Violence?
By JULIE HILDEN
The movie "The Matrix" seems to have
played a role in a number of recent murder cases, at least according
to the defendants. The question is: What role, exactly?
Especially in recent decades, movies
and music have often been cited as inspiring "copycat"
crimes. In such crimes, it has been claimed that the perpetrators
had acted out, in real life, something that they had either seen
depicted in a movie, or heard described in song lyrics.
Indeed, "The Matrix" (released
in 1999, with two sequels out in 2003) itself may have been partially
copycatted by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the teens who perpetrated
the horrific 1999 Columbine High School shootings. They are said
to have modeled their black "trenchcoat mafia" costumes
on that of  Neo, the lead character in "The
Matrix."
But there is where the resemblance ends:
Neo's forte is martial arts, not shooting. In addition, his targets
were computer-generated images, not flesh-and-blood people.
In cases of apparent copycat crime, victims'
families sometimes have sued movie or record companies on the
theory that they are responsible for the crimes their products
inspired. The overwhelming majority of such suits have been unsuccessful.
Sometimes they fail for First Amendment reasons. Other times,
they fail due to the plaintiffs' failure to prove a causal connection
between the movie or song, and the crime, that would be sufficient
for legal liability.
But now a new form of causal connection
between a movie and reality seems to be emerging--and one that
is more subtle than copycatting. According to several defendants
and their attorneys, it seems that the very philosophy of "The
Matrix" may have somehow interacted with the psychology
of certain mentally ill individuals, in such a way as to cause
them to commit their crimes. These individuals did not copy "The
Matrix"; instead, they seem simply to have believed the
philosophies espoused in the movie to be true.
How should the law deal with situations
like this? Are the moviemakers at all culpable?
"The Matrix"'s
Basic Concept
The basic conceit of "The Matrix"
is that reality is merely a computer-generated illusion. In the
world of "The Matrix," starting from birth, all human
beings--except those who have been freed--experience only a virtual
reality. In the actual reality--to which they themselves have
no access--they are immobile and unconscious, being fed images
of the virtual world that have been created by malevolent computer
programs.
Put another way, humans in the matrix
world are like brains in a vat unable to perceive the vat they
are in--until and unless, like Neo and other "Matrix"
characters, they are lucky enough to get an opportunity escape
into a far grittier actual reality. Everything humans perceive,
while they are still in the grip of the Matrix, is illusory.
"The Matrix"'s philosophy,
intriguing as it is, isn't original. Philosophers at least since
Descartes have been raising the issue of how to prove--or whether
to believe in--the reality of the external world. And, indeed,
modern philosopher Hilary Putnam posed this same question that
"The Matrix" implicitly raises: How do we know we are
not merely brains in a vat?
Putnam himself claims to have disproved
the possibility that--here in the real world--we are merely brains
in a vat. Yet many respected philosophers disagree, asserting
that we can never really know, one way or the other, what the
answer is.
And what of the believers? Brilliant
philosopher Putnam believes that we definitely are not brains
in a vat. But does that mean someone who believes we definitely
are brains in a vat is necessarily insane? Put another way, is
an individual who affirmatively believes in the philosophical
view put forward in "The Matrix"--that what appears
to be reality is not "really real"--therefore insane?
Based on this philosophical controversy,
one might think the answer is plainly no. But two courts that
have considered this question seem to have reasoned very differently.
Not Guilty By Reason
Of the Matrix?
Two defendants in criminal cases, by
incorporating their strange beliefs about "The Matrix"
as evidence of a mental disorder, have successfully asserted
pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity. In each case, the
"Matrix"-based plea was accepted by the judge.
One was Vadim Mieseges of San Francisco,
who dismembered his landlady in 2000. He subsequently told police
that he had been "sucked into 'The Matrix.'"
Another was Tonda Lynn Ansley of Ohio,
who shot her landlady. Like Mieseges, she claimed to have believed
her killing had not been real, but a dream. She commented, "They
commit a lot of crimes in 'The Matrix,'" suggesting that,
just as in the movie, her killing must have been only "a
bad dream."
Meanwhile, Beltway Sniper suspect John
Lee Malvo is also said to have been obsessed with "The Matrix."
In jail, he wrote a note stating "Free yourself of 'The
Matrix.'" The idea of the real-as-unreal seems to fit well
with Malvo's psychology. According to reports, he laughed when
allegedly confessing his shootings--as if he didn't believe that
he had killed actual human beings.
Will any delusions that Malvo may have
had relating to "The Matrix" be used in his defense
at trial? That is not yet known. But it seems unlikely, for if
Malvo does use this defense, it probably will be unsuccessful.
It was judges who accepted Mieseges's
and Ansley's pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity. In contrast,
a jury would likely be far less sympathetic to Malvo's potential
insanity claim. They would probably be convinced, instead, by
prosecutors' argument that Malvo was, at most "crazy like
a fox": Prosecutors would be likely to successfully use
the fact that the shootings were planned, and repeated, as evidence
of strategy, and thus of sanity.
Speech, Action, and
the First Amendment
With all these "Matrix"-inspired
killings, shouldn't the moviemakers bear some responsibility?
Absolutely not.
Again, it's important to emphasize that
the "Matrix"-inspired crimes committed by Ansley, Mieseges,
and (allegedly) by Malvo were not copycat crimes. Neither were
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's, as I explained above.
When plaintiffs try to claim that filmmakers
and music companies are responsible for copycat crimes, they
can at least try to invoke the speech/action distinction in the
First Amendment context.
Under First Amendment doctrine, when
speech verges very close to action--for instance, if it is about
to incite immediate violence, or if it threatens violence or
other illegality--it is accorded less protection. Accordingly,
the publication of dangerous instruction manuals giving step-by-step
guides to accomplishing illegal ends ("How to Build a Bomb")
has created some of the most difficult First Amendment test cases.
Certain violent movies--the ones that
seem to advocate, rather than opposing, the violence they are
depicting--could be argued to provide the same kind of instruction
manual for "copycat" crimes. In the end, however, I
think that argument is far too simplistic: Movies and songs are
far more complex and nuanced than a mere instruction manual,
and never can amount to direct advocacy of violence in the way
that a political speech can.
And in any event, the argument that certain
movies and songs are virtual instruction manuals for violence
does not apply to the "Matrix"-inspired crimes we have
seen so far.
There, the perpetrator is, at most, copying
not a crime, but a philosophy--and an academically respected
one at that. Moreover, "copying" is not exactly the
right word for the psychological process that occurs when someone
comes to believe in a given philosophy.
It seems that what may have happened,
in the "Matrix"-inspired crimes we have seen so far,
is that exposure to the philosophy of "The Matrix"
could have exacerbated a pre-existing tendency towards a certain
delusion. That is, the philosophy of "The Matrix"--that
reality is not "really real"--may have played smoothly
into the defendants' delusion that because killing is not "really
real" then it must not really be so terrible.
But the same effect might theoretically
occur from reading Hilary Putnam's clever paper on "Brains
in a Vat." And, if it did so, then consistent with the First
Amendment, that obviously could not lead to a lawsuit against
Putnam.
Indeed, there are many philosophies that
could offer--and over history, have offered--a rationalization
for violence. Government-sponsored violence is, more often than
not, coupled with a philosophy invoked to justify it--Marxism
being just one example. Yet such philosophies are all recognized
to be fully protected by the First Amendment, no matter how dangerous
they may seem or, indeed, actually be.
The fact that the philosophy of "The
Matrix" has become part of pop culture does not distinguish
it from the more time-tested philosophies whose First Amendment
status we would never question. Surely the mere fact of an idea's
wild popularity cannot affect its First Amendment status--for
speakers have a right to reach, and convince, their listeners.
The philosophy of "The Matrix"
may be especially convincing to those who are psychologically
vulnerable, for it can dovetail with, and confirm, their delusions.
It also may provide them with a ready rationalization for violence.
But among the world's philosophies, that hardly makes it unique.
Julie Hilden
practiced First Amendment law at the D.C. law firm of Williams
& Connolly from 1996-99. Currently a freelance writer, she
published a memoir, The
Bad Daughter, in 1998. Her forthcoming novel Three
will be published in the U.S. in August 2003 by Plume Books,
in the U.K. by Bantam, and in French translation by Actes Sud.
This column originally appeared on Findlaw's
Writ.
She can be reached at: julhil@aol.com.
Julie's new
website is a lot of fun. Have a look.
Today's
Features
David
Krieger
The Big Lie
Ramzy
Baroud
Sharon and the Myth of the Peacemakers
Anthony
Gancarski
Sharansky: "Crucifixion is a Privilege"
Sam
Hamod
His Own Little Country
Sean Carter
Why Indict Martha Stewart and Not Ken Lay?
David
Lindorff
Cracks in the Consensus
Stew Albert
Ari's Great Set
Elaine
Cassel
Ashcroft the Insatiable
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|