Anyone can have a "blog." So David Berkowitz types up his entries on paper and scans them onto his webpage. Hardly a blog in the sense that most of us know them, but a blog nonetheless.
I heard a blurb on NY1 this morning while I was getting ready for work that some victims' families are angered by the fact that he is allowed to have an online journal. I honestly don't know why anyone would be outraged by the existence of this site. As if that is some kind of tangible freedom for him? The man is going to be behind bars for the rest of his life. So he gets to share his thoughts with anyone who might be interested in reading them. What harm does this cause and what freedom does it afford him outside of that which he is entitled to regardless of whether or not he is imprisoned: freedom of speech?
While looking for links on this I found that Gothamist got ahold of the cover of the Daily News today with its typically hysterical headline.
While I'm on the subject of the Daily News, I have to tell you how much I despise that "newspaper." It is such a sensationalist piece of crap. The worst of the worst when it comes to so-called "journalism." It's Fox News wrapped up in a shitty tabloid-esque publication. The editors never fail to take a biased approach in their headlines and "reporting." One that really annoyed me was how the Abu Ghraib scandal received such minimal attention, yet two days later, after Nick Berg was murdered by who-knows-who, the word "SAVAGES" was splashed across the cover in a manner obviously intended to demonize the enemy (those savage, dark skinned, primates of the middle east). They rarely accurately report the facts and never take anything less than a frenzied approach to current events. It's all about dramatization and reactionism and has nothing whatsoever to do with real information.
So the Son of Sam's face (or rather, his face 35 years ago - couldn't they get a current picture?) is zoomed and the word "OUTRAGE" is stamped above his head. What is so outrageous about this schmuck having his own website? It's not any more outrageous than all the other creeps out there who have their own websites. As my friend Tyler used to say "This is not news. Where's the news?" It's not as if he's preaching about satanism and how you should get a gun and go blowing people's brains out. He's not begging for mercy or sympathy. He writes about whatever he feels like. Whatever is going on in the world that interests him. I say: let the repenting monster be. Even I can agree with the Born Agains on this one.
Note: This entry was slightly revised due to obsessive compulsive-ness.
Posted by Maria at June 11, 2004 04:05 PM | TrackBackI actually didn't know who David Berkowitz was. I went to the index page of where his journal is hosted and found out.
In light of the things he's done, I find it a little creepy to be reading his thoughts. I don't think this is enough to get outraged over, though. Who knows? Maybe he has repented. At any rate, if I really did think he was so darn offensive, guess what? I just wouldn't read him. I guess that's just too much of a concept for some people.
There's always somebody with their panties in a twist because everybody else isn't like them. They need to move on. As long as somebody isn't blogging about boinking children and small animals, I'm not going to demand an immediate reprimand or desist.
Posted by: April at June 13, 2004 12:41 AMI don't care what someone blogs about (incuding boinking children or small furry things) because its free thought. Thoughts may be dangerous, but it is certainly more dangerous to repress them or to pretend they don't exist. Acting on those thoughts is something else. Actually boinking children is way different from the thought of it or talking about it.
I don't find Berowitz's blog a problem at all. Who says its even the same person writing it that did the murders? I'm certainly not the person I was 35 years ago in many respects.
Posted by: cul at June 13, 2004 09:53 PM