Looking away is not what strengthens society. Exposing the errors in his mindset and providing ways of help to lead people like him on the "right" path will. It is a bad plan to lock away criminals, instead it should be tried to heal/fix them and the underlying problems. 

And it is the media's responsibility to handle situations like this in appropriate ways. Which they failed to do right from the beginning. 

I agree that providing rehabilitation for criminals and getting them back into society as working and providing members is the correct course of action, it's one of the strengths of our juridical system in my opinion. Exposing his mindset, trying to steer other people away from going down the same path he did. Still, even if he was completely rehabilitated and released, which seems unlikely (especially regarding some of the stuff in his manifesto of craziness), he killed almost 100 people. Even if he got a namechange and/or plastic surgery or whatever, people would find out, and I don't think it'd be unlikely to expect a lynch mob.

And yes, the media haven't really handled this situation appropratiely. Like one of the members of AUF present at the island said, the media attempted to call them on their cells even when they should have been perfectly aware of the fact that they were attempting to hide, or at least used a little bit of common sense. 

this man shouldn't be given a forum to spread his ideas. Not only would that be intolerable for the families of his victims, it would also not serve any purpose. By now we know what kind of ideology he's a disciple of. Let others explain the details, but don't give him the satisfaction of or attention he wants.

Also, Spirit, while in general I agree with you, I don't think a man like this can be reintegrated into society. Not only would he be lynched, as Berntsen said, he would also be too high a risk to be released into society again. A man who is capable of committing mass murder on such a scale can not ever be trusted again. He has forfeited the right to be a part of society, even if he ever wanted to be. Also I cannot see how a man like this can ever repay his debt to society. His guilt weighs too heavy. He belongs behind bars or in a mental hospital for the rest of his life. 

Spreading bad ideas

vs.

Creating a martyrdom and signaling that openness only applies as long as your ideas conform.

I believe I have to vote against keeping things locked away and hidden though because it will make it possible to counter and dismantle his message. If you let it become some mysterious ideas that are to dangerous to let into the light you leave the field open for many more to abuse the cover-up for their own purposes.

The real harm is already done and I think that increased understanding of the background would do more good than increase the danger of future acts of violence. 

what I wrote if you are referring to me. I didn't say that there should not be a discussion and dismantling of his message. I just said that the shooter should not be given a forum by allowing to publicly justify or explain himself. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or openness to ideas because those extend only so far as the speaker does not openly threaten democracy by his acts or words. Democracy has a right to defend itself. Again, I'm not saying that there should not be a public debate, only that the shooter himself cannot and should not be allowed to participate.

I'm also all for investigating the background of why the shooter hunted and killed more than 80 teenagers, although I doubt that we will learn anything useful there. Quite frankly, I think this man is insane and he will use any opportunity to publicly spill his bullshit out into the world. And that's probably just what he wanted all along, too, because otherwise he'd probably have committed suicide instead of giving up. So why allow him to speak publicly? 

So why allow him to speak publicly?

There are two possibilities here, regarding that the main idea of the guy was to explain the world his motivations:

1/ either you mute him in order to prevent from propagating his shitty motivations

2/or you allow him to debate, but then it is quite risky as a public audience is exactly what he is looking for in order to propagate his message

Well, whatever you do, there is a risk to consider this is either censorship, or too much lax....

What is the less worst option then ? 

They should just shoot the fucker, or hang him publicly or something. 

You damn barbarian ;)

I have to admit he deserves it... like all other terrorists, whatever their motivations are (religious, politics, etc..) 

I was in London when the bombs went off there, and it is a pretty harrowing experience.

Terrorists want exposure - thats the entirity of their goal, to cause terror.

What happened in England was it caused a social change where the country became more consolidated and the people more united against the common threat.

It's very reactionary, but that's human nature. Hopefully this can have a positive effect in Norway - It sounds callous, but something good has to come from even the worst disfigurement of human psyche.

Whatever is done to this guy should be announced, but shouldn't be shown, just to not give him a a forum for his evil.

Hopefully it'll involve him being very slowly fed into a wood chipper. 

I really don't understand how you consider not giving a mass murderer who just shot more than 80 teenagers the chance to "debate" his views publicly censorship. Can you explain that to me? I can't wrap my head around that idea. Do you think we should put him in front of a camera so that he can explain to the world how he wanted to unite western Europe against the islamic threat? What good would that do? 

I think I was not clear... using the word censorship is maybe a little bit aggressive, but this is certainly what the murderer will think if there no public debate... anyway, who cares now about what he thinks ? He is been caught, and needs to pay for his acts..

What I just tried to say is there's absolutely no solution against such morons. Whatever you do, he already reached his goal: the world knows him, the world knows his motivations, the word knows his "cause".
And what do you think such debate would bring on the table ? Do you think it will be fruitful to know the why and how such massacre, to let the guy explains why he acted so ? Whatever you'll say, whatever you'll try to elaborate to convince him his acts are absolutely horrible, he will find loads of "good" arguments to justify his choices, and explain why he acted as he did... and this is the most terrifying. There are absolutely no sense, no valid arguments to justify such act, but he will never understand.

And at the end, I tend to agree with Ricky, these kinds of mass murderer or terrorists, call it as you want, should be executed on the public place.. as an example.. just to show there no compromises with them. 

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or openness to ideas because those extend only so far as the speaker does not openly threaten democracy by his acts or words.

...is total bullshit, because then you can just define everyone who's acting critical of your regime as "outside democracy" and censor him. A true democracy needs to be able to handle any kind of information or opinion.

The real problem [1] is that discussing or listening to the political agenda behind such an act constitutes positive feedback towards not only the killer, but everyone who might play with the idea of using something on the same level of violence as means of getting attention.

[1] The real real problem is of course that you don't discuss, honor and give some thought to these political agendas before their spokesmen even think of attention whoring the shit out of everyone. Violence is used when communication fails. In democracies, communication tends to fail, and people -- not only -- at the top tend to sabotage communication, because it's to their advantage, to the point that it is doomed to fail dealing with all but the most simple problems. 

the tyranny of the majority. There's no way to morally defend it. 

our best option.

Megaman, you need to read what I wrote. I'm not talking about criticism of democracy. I'm talking about those who want to do away with it. Criticism is good and should be heard. It may be true that mainstream media is not representing such criticism. But that is not what I was talking about. I am all for free speech. Please don't put words in my mouth. 

You're not thinking hard enough. 

for pointing that out, you dick. 

Hey jt, go troll some atheists instead. 

bear and Spirit are right.

glad to hear everything is okay with you Berntsen.

thanks for caring, Shambler. Nobody I, or my family knows were affected by the events. 

You wouldn't be able to set up a party with the main goal of reintroducing monarchy in a "democracy" that censors stuff that's "against democracy". Even if the majority of people would favor it. 

By definition. Democracy favours majorities, but that is why it is fair - you can piss of a small group of people or a large one. To piss of a small group of people is not as bad as pissing off a large group of people. /scienceLesson 

I dont think he has a right to 'explain himself' even if it would allow reasonable people a chance to deconstuct and destroy all of his arguments one by one. First of all some people might agree with him, and that is dangerous. Secondly an example should be made that if a person goes on a killing spree that by doing so you loose the right to spread whatever message you were trying to spread. Killing spree's are not the answer to political or social debates. And if they are used in such a debate, that the killer's message and beliefs are de-valued entirely. 

Denying human rights is never an option.

I am wondering what kind of treatment you would recommend for eg US soldiers who proudly went to the middle east to kill those filthy raghead donkey loving third class humans. Do you like how Saddam Hussein was hung? 

Should be denied.

Saddam Hussein deserved to be hung, for killing all those kurds in the late eighties, women, childeren, chemical warfare. Screw that guy, he got what was coming.

U.S. Military - dont get me started on the U.S. Military. I would never blindly pledge alleigance to a piece of fabric. And what exactly they think they are upholding other than a deeply deeply deeply deeply deeply deeply deeply deeply corrupt government, I have no idea.

I will say that if you blow up and shoot hundreds of innocent people in an act of terrorism that you loose certain rights. Including the right to have your beliefs heard by masses. I dont think you automatically have that right anyway, do you? Mass cold-blooded killers should not have their point of view heard. It sends out the message that if you kill hundreds of innocent people, then everyone will listen to your point of view. 

Never denying anyone ever rights ever is extreme liberalism.

Child rapists, murderers, terrorists and dictators long ago decided to ignore basic human rights, they don't deserve any in return.