A massacre . A kid . A videotaped `` manifesto . '' As the news broke , inevitably , the discussion turned to the Second Amendment . But as I watched the killer 's video , questions about the First Amendment began to rise . What are Elliot Rodger 's post-mortem First Amendment rights ? Does his screed belong in the marketplace of ideas ? What about those who capitalized on it ? Where does the First Amendment leave off and ethics begin ? The video was initially on YouTube , which immediately -- and presumably automatically -- used it as an opportunity to sell adwords . That struck some people as distasteful . After all , Google -- which owns YouTube -- has the unofficial credo `` Do n't be evil . '' Profiting from the hateful ravings of a mass murderer might easily be described as evil . Let 's cut the Internet giant some slack -- it places such ads automatically on all videos . But one would hope that Google , realizing it was profiting from the words of a mass murderer , might decide the ad sales were n't worth it . On the other hand , Google is n't a public service , it is a business , and if we want that video to be on the Internet , someone has to pay for the bandwidth . That raises the question whether the video should be on the Internet at all . Some credible scholars say that making mass murderers famous motivates other mass murderers . ( One might even argue that this article is part of the problem ) . Elliot Rodger sent his lengthy diatribe to the media before he went on his killing spree -- correctly predicting that his actions would propel his ideas ( such as they were ) into the marketplace of ideas on a digital billboard larger than he could ever have enjoyed had he not amplified them with his psychotic rampage . Accordingly , should we not silence him ? Wipe his words from the Internet forever ? Let him be forgotten ? There is a counter-argument -- let 's let everyone see him for what he was -- a pathetic figure , worthy of no respect or pity . Let him stand as a negative example . We allow `` Mein Kampf '' to be published and even study it . But what of those who believe Rodger is a positive example ? Sickeningly enough , some expressed admiration for what he did , as there will always be people who glorify the worst among us . While the overwhelming view is one of horror and disgust , some people put up a Facebook page praising him . As much as I disagree with that view , my beliefs are strong enough that I can tolerate theirs . Some might say that such a perspective must be purged . The First Amendment would find such a purge to be intolerable -- if enforced by the government or force of law . The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular beliefs , and the marketplace of ideas should be open to this -- and I would hope that none would visit the stall in the marketplace to buy them . That , however , ignores the issue of ethics . I have a blog . If someone wanted to glorify Rodger on my blog , I would say `` my blog , my rules , '' and I would not tolerate it . That would not be a First Amendment violation . In fact , the right not to speak is as precious as the right to speak . Let 's say that Rodger 's supporters went from website to website and were met with rejection at every corner . Their ideas would , theoretically , die out -- but they would die a natural death , condemned by a lack of nourishment in the marketplace of ideas . Facebook initially was confronted with this dilemma ; when people began to protest about the pro-Rodger page , the company allegedly took the all-too-common position we hear from arrogant tech companies : They did n't have to take it down , so they would n't . Facebook was completely within its legal rights to take that position -- but what an ethically bankrupt decision ! Only when pressure became too great did Facebook seem to cave in to public opinion . The apparently belated reversal of position was hypocritical at best . If Facebook wants to be an anything-goes-and-we-don't-care company , then it should have let the page be . Otherwise , the company could have taken the position that it would not allow such filth on its digital real estate . Either position would have been completely within its rights . But braying `` free speech '' only until it could n't stand the heat from that decision ? Shame on Facebook . What this story shows us is not so much that our notions of free speech should be strong , but there is room for free speech and ethics . The First Amendment allows us to publish Elliot Rodger 's rant and his video . The First Amendment protects our right to criticize him , to pity him , to hate him , or even to declare him a hero . But , just as with any rights , what we can do and what we should do may not be the same thing . I would hope that we will not forget that , and that the online giants might begin to learn it .
Michael Randazza : Shooter 's video rant is legal to watch , but is it ethical ? Randazza : Was YouTube right to show violence when it would make money from it ? He asks : Does the video motivate others to act ? Or does it show how repulsive he is . Randazza : YouTube took down page about him after initial viewing : a hypocritical move .