<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;stabbing&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 08:44:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Police Blame Video Games For 2-Year-Old Stabbing 5-Month-Old</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090527/0335425026.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090527/0335425026.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It seems that whenever there's any kind of violence involving kids, someone rushes to blame video games.  Steve L points us to the latest such case, where it's taken to something of an extreme.  Apparently a 2-year-old boy <a href="http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/2-year-old-stabs-baby-brother-129328.html" target="_new">stabbed his 5-month-old brother</a> with a knife.  It sounds like he didn't do much damage, but police immediately claimed that violent video games owned by a much older teenaged brother "may have played a role."  The only problem?  The 2-year-old neither plays the games nor watches his older brother playing them.  But, why not blame the video games?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090527/0335425026.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090527/0335425026.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090527/0335425026.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>evidence?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090527/0335425026</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:12:15 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Japanese ISPs Decide That Criminal Confessions Should Be Blocked Online</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080702/1047051574.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080702/1047051574.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With various <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/0117061360.shtml">governments</a> pushing for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/1549591365.shtml">laws</a> that require ISPs to block "objectionable" content, it's not hard to come up with scenarios where that will backfire.  Of course, who needs to come up with fictional scenarios when reality will serve up examples on its own.  Over in Japan, some mentally disturbed individual used the web to detail how he planned to stab a bunch of people.  After he carried out the stabbings, rather than focusing on how such sites can be useful in <i>stopping</i> homicidal maniacs <i>before</i> they kill, the Japanese are focusing on <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/07/02/japan-censors-sites-stabbings" target="_new">figuring out how they can block such content as "objectionable"</a> so that people can't see it.  Is common sense dead?  How could it possibly make sense to try to <i>hide</i> the fact that someone is confessing to the crimes they plan to commit before they commit them?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080702/1047051574.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080702/1047051574.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080702/1047051574.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>common-sense-is-dead</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080702/1047051574</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>