Skip to main content

Posting Elliot Rodger's video is legal, but is it right?

By Marc Randazza
updated 5:54 PM EDT, Thu May 29, 2014
A makeshift memorial is front of the I.V. Deli in Isla Vista, California, where Christopher Michaels-Martinez, 20, was murdered.
A makeshift memorial is front of the I.V. Deli in Isla Vista, California, where Christopher Michaels-Martinez, 20, was murdered.
  • Marc Randazza: Shooter's video rant is legal to post, but is it ethical?
  • Randazza: Was YouTube right to show video when it would make money from it?
  • He asks: Does the video motivate others to murder? Or does it show how repulsive he is
  • Randazza: Facebook took down page praising him after initial refusal: a hypocritical decision

Editor's note: Marc J. Randazza is a Las Vegas-based First Amendment attorney and managing partner of the Randazza Legal Group. He is licensed to practice in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts and Nevada. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- 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 "Don't be evil." Profiting from the hateful ravings of a mass murderer might easily be described as evil.

Marc Randazza
Marc Randazza

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 weren't worth it. On the other hand, Google isn'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.

Victim's dad: Politicians, don't call me
Remembering the Isla Vista victims
Isla Vista mass killings aftermath

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 didn't have to take it down, so they wouldn'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 couldn'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.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on

Part of complete coverage on
updated 4:34 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
updated 2:51 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Jeff Yang says the film industry's surrender will have lasting implications.
updated 4:13 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Newt Gingrich: No one should underestimate the historic importance of the collapse of American defenses in the Sony Pictures attack.
updated 7:55 AM EST, Wed December 10, 2014
Dean Obeidallah asks how the genuine Stephen Colbert will do, compared to "Stephen Colbert"
updated 12:34 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Some GOP politicians want drug tests for welfare recipients; Eric Liu says bailed-out execs should get equal treatment
updated 8:42 AM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Louis Perez: Obama introduced a long-absent element of lucidity into U.S. policy on Cuba.
updated 12:40 PM EST, Tue December 16, 2014
The slaughter of more than 130 children by the Pakistani Taliban may prove as pivotal to Pakistan's security policy as the 9/11 attacks were for the U.S., says Peter Bergen.
updated 11:00 AM EST, Wed December 17, 2014
The Internet is an online extension of our own neighborhoods. It's time for us to take their protection just as seriously, says Arun Vishwanath.
updated 4:54 PM EST, Tue December 16, 2014
Gayle Lemmon says we must speak out for the right of children to education -- and peace
updated 5:23 AM EST, Wed December 17, 2014
Russia's economic woes just seem to be getting worse. How will President Vladimir Putin respond? Frida Ghitis gives her take.
updated 1:39 AM EST, Wed December 17, 2014
Australia has generally seen itself as detached from the threat of terrorism. The hostage incident this week may change that, writes Max Barry.
updated 3:20 PM EST, Fri December 12, 2014
Thomas Maier says the trove of letters the Kennedy family has tried to guard from public view gives insight into the Kennedy legacy and the history of era.
updated 9:56 AM EST, Mon December 15, 2014
Will Congress reform the CIA? It's probably best not to expect much from Washington. This is not the 1970s, and the chances for substantive reform are not good.
updated 4:01 PM EST, Mon December 15, 2014
From superstorms to droughts, not a week goes by without a major disruption somewhere in the U.S. But with the right planning, natural disasters don't have to be devastating.
updated 9:53 AM EST, Mon December 15, 2014
Would you rather be sexy or smart? Carol Costello says she hates this dumb question.
updated 5:53 PM EST, Sun December 14, 2014
A story about Pope Francis allegedly saying animals can go to heaven went viral late last week. The problem is that it wasn't true. Heidi Schlumpf looks at the discussion.
updated 10:50 AM EST, Sun December 14, 2014
Democratic leaders should wake up to the reality that the party's path to electoral power runs through the streets, where part of the party's base has been marching for months, says Errol Louis
updated 4:23 PM EST, Sat December 13, 2014
David Gergen: John Brennan deserves a national salute for his efforts to put the report about the CIA in perspective
updated 9:26 AM EST, Fri December 12, 2014
Anwar Sanders says that in some ways, cops and protesters are on the same side
updated 9:39 AM EST, Thu December 11, 2014
A view by Samir Naji, a Yemeni who was accused of serving in Osama bin Laden's security detail and imprisoned for nearly 13 years without charge in Guantanamo Bay
updated 12:38 PM EST, Sun December 14, 2014
S.E. Cupp asks: How much reality do you really want in your escapist TV fare?
updated 1:28 PM EST, Thu December 11, 2014
Rip Rapson says the city's 'Grand Bargain' saved pensions and a world class art collection by pulling varied stakeholders together, setting civic priorities and thinking outside the box
updated 6:10 PM EST, Sat December 13, 2014
Glenn Schwartz says the airing of the company's embarrassing emails might wake us up to the usefulness of talking in-person instead of electronically
updated 5:33 PM EST, Fri December 12, 2014
The computer glitch that disrupted air traffic over the U.K. on Friday was a nuisance, but not dangerous, says Les Abend