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.
@highlight
Marc Randazza: Shooter's video rant is legal to post, but is it ethical?
@highlight
Randazza: Was YouTube right to show video when it would make money from it?
@highlight
He asks: Does the video motivate others to murder? Or does it show how repulsive he is
@highlight
Randazza: Facebook took down page praising him after initial refusal: a hypocritical decision
Only when pressure became too great did @placeholder seem to cave in to public opinion.