The writings of the person who killed three 9-year-olds and three adults at a private Christian elementary school in Nashville last year cannot be released to the public, a judge ruled Thursday.
Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea Myles found that The Covenant School children and parents hold the copyright to any writings or other works created by shooter Audrey Hale, a former student who was killed by police. As part of the effort to keep the records closed, Hale’s parents transferred ownership of Hale’s property to the victims’ families, who then argued in court that they should be allowed to determine who has access to them.
Myles agreed, ruling that “the original writings, journals, art, photos and videos created by Hale” are subject to an exception to the Tennessee Public Records Act created by the federal Copyright Act.
The shooter left behind at least 20 journals, a suicide note and a memoir, according to court filings. When the records requests were denied, several parties sued, and the situation quickly ballooned into a messy mix of conspiracy theories, leaked documents, probate battles and accusations of ethical misconduct. Myles’ order will almost surely be appealed.
If the killer’s parents were approached by Fox/TMZ who wanted to turn just a few pages into some whacko documentary, would it be right to withhold the rest of the lunatic ramblings?
IDK how to feel about this, just know it’s weird
I know exactly how to feel about this- we shouldn’t be promoting the writings of a mass murderer. We should forget his name and just remember his victims.
And it seems like the parents of those victims agree.
The article states that the parents signed over the killer’s estate to the victims’ parents.
Which is why this case might feel fair to plenty of people. If you’re allowed to sign over an estate, though, and you sign it over to someone with a profit motive, maybe you’re allowed to essentially sell evidence the public is normally entitled to.
It’s based on the Son of Sam law and (likely) the killer’s family saw a way to alleviate the victim’s worries by signing over the rights.
The victims families own the copyright, not the killers parents.
They transferred ownership to the victims families so anyone looking to make money off of it would be paying the victims families.
I’m wondering about precedent. With my “if”, think “how would courts rule if in a future case …” or “how would we feel …”
(commented a little more in this thread as well)