ik I'm a morgan blog but I have been keeping up with the lake brantley case as I've mentioned and this psychologists comments about the most recent update (Jimmys letter to the judge) gave me the ick.
UNDOUBTEDLY, parents should be involved in childrens lives and their mental-wellbeing and keeping them safe should be of their upmost interest, and the internet CAN be a detrimental place for a young teen, especially when mentally ill or easily influenced, but "Going into their computers" is such a red flag to me. I don't care how good the intentions are, going through a kids electronics is seen as a breach of privacy to me.
I believe there is a way to have open and honest conversations with what your kid is doing on the internet without literally snooping on them or forcing them into a corner and taking away their phone. Teaching basic internet safety and bringing back the idea of internet anonymity is a good start, especially in this day and age. Having basic empathy for your child is another. Being strict and stripping them of autonomy FAMOUSLY doesn't work. It just makes your kids sneakier, and less open to you, thus putting them in more danger.
As someone who has extensively researched the Slenderman case, I can see this one going in a similar direction media wise where it'll be used to paint a sensationalized "internet bad" narrative that completely ignores, if not buries the mental struggles of the perpetrators. Of course there are differences in these cases as I do believe there are sides of the 🍵🌊🌊 that can be detrimental to someones perception of violence, unlike Slenderman, who is basically just an unfortunately caught-in-the-crossfire horror figure, those nuances are lost on the general public--they'll happily spread around that the evil internet full of evil strangers turned this kid into a monster, regardless of the community that kid was involved in. The parents will use giving them a phone as an excuse as to why they weren't present enough in their child's life to notice any warning signs, or kind enough that their kid could be open about the struggles they've been hiding.
Again, the internet can be a bad, bad place. I've been online and unsupervised from a young age, I know how bad it can be. But you know what never helped? My parents snooping through my electronics, and scolding me for doing things on there that they didn't understand.
I don't want to deny Jimmy's feelings of being influenced by the internet to think violent things, regardless of his amount of remorse. I just foresee a future where this case is used to further the demonization of the internet when it's in the hands of children and teens that's so prevalent today.
Jimmy and Lois are mentally ill. I don't care how premeditated a crime was, or if the whole "reviving AL" thing is a lie or not, to meticulously plan a murder is a sign of mental illness to me. Especially at their age. It's not an excuse, it's an explanation. They need help. Not for their case to be used to spread subtle anti-child-advocacy drivel.
