The weapons situation in America has been boiling over for some time. In the country the statistics mercilessly say that there is more than one gun around for every citizen, and mass shootings have never been so numerous.
The reaction of government bodies? Non-existent, or very slow, hampered by a series of vetoes and crossed interests involving lobbies and "intermediate links" between politics and companies. Public opinion (which is going through a slow cultural change) is increasingly pressing on the wave of indignation over the many deaths, but this latest news makes us understand how difficult it will be not to eradicate the phenomenon, but also just affect it.
A little 1984, a little The Simpsons
New York State will use a new approach to filter gun license applicants. People seeking it will have to provide their social media profiles for “character and conduct” monitoring.
Many Democrats and national arms control organizations in America applaud this initiative. However, many specialists are questioning the way the law is implemented and have expressed concerns about free speech.
Even local officials who will be responsible for reviewing social media posts are wondering if they have the resources to do so and if the provision is constitutional.
Peter Kehoe, of the New York Sheriffs Association, points to the lack of money and staff to handle this new application “process.” The bill, he says, violates Second Amendment rights and he doubts that this (privacy-infringing) control would work.
An "army" of officials who peek at people on social networks against guns in America?
For the avoidance of doubt: it is not a proposal. It is a provision already approved in a law (here it is) and will come into effect in September. It was signed by the governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, based on an assumption (sometimes true): mass murders are sometimes preceded by announcements made on social networks.
What are the details of the law? Applicants for a gun license must provide local officials with a list of current and previous three years' social media accounts. It will be up to local sheriff's personnel, judges or county clerks to analyze those profiles for any statements that suggest dangerous behavior.
As if you couldn't delete old accounts, omit others, or delete posts before asking a question to get weapons.
The post could end here if it were "just" yet another useless measure to give people a sop and continue to give away weapons in America as if they were popcorn. Unfortunately, this measure presents many other risks.
A factory of violations (and racism)
“Why limit yourself to creating a cosmetic measure, when I can also offer a new tool for unjustified surveillance?”, the legislator will have asked. And the growing debate in American civil society about the surveillance of social media posts (and the risk of it being used as an ax on black communities) creating new tensions in an already difficult framework it shows it in full evidence.
“The question is, can we take a measure like this in an anti-racist way that doesn't create more violence, state violence that happens through surveillance?” he claims Desmond Upton Patton, professor of social policy at the University of Pennsylvania and founder of SAFElab, a research initiative studying violence involving youth of color.
“How are we going to enforce it?” you ask James Densley, criminal justice professor at Metro State University. “Nobody has any idea how to do it.”
And he's right. How will you discern the publication of an angry opinion, or a “harsh” music video from the statement of intent? The Thought Police is ever closer.
Arms in America: from bad to worse
Of course, everyone in Europe (except, perhaps, the warmongers) supports the need for gun control. And even in the USA a civil movement is growing that would like to get rid of it. Measures like this, however, end up creating other weapons in America and dangerous precedents: imagine the need to undergo this "social control" even to obtain driving licenses or other types of licenses.
This New York state law is hasty and vague: useless and harmful. It will be removed, unenforced or worse open to referees.
Yet another example of how the USA will have to deal with this "demon" of personal weapons for a long time to come, and with its worst consequences.
