Should McVeigh's execution be Webcast?

COMMENTARY--Should the execution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh be Webcast for the world to see? That is the question before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, which is holding an emergency hearing on the matter April 17, two days before the bombing's anniversary.

On the one hand, the request to Webcast the May 16 "event" makes my skin crawl. As evil as McVeigh is, I can't fathom why anyone would want to watch such a thing. Or maybe what really bothers me is that the folks who are petitioning for the right to do this are the same ones who brought us the adult entertainment site VoyeurDorm. It's such a shameless publicity stunt it offends me.

But the more I muse about it, the more I wonder if what's clouding my viewpoint is my personal hatred of watching violence, my conflict about the death penalty even in such a clear-cut case as this, and my bias against PR-hungry Internet types who are using our beloved medium and the coveted First Amendment for their own personal gain.

I have to admit, at least, that the PR-hungry people have a bit of a point.

"The execution of Mr. McVeigh is a matter of great public importance and significance," reads the request submitted by lawyers for the Entertainment Network. "The public has a constitutional right to be present at the execution, and the only method of delivering that right to the citizens is via audiovisual transmission."

One of the co-founders of Entertainment Network, David Marshlack, maintains the Web's superiority for this type of transmission. Unlike a television broadcast, he says, a Webcast could be restricted to adults. He plans to do that by working with Internet filtering companies so they could block out the execution, and by charging a small fee, $1.95, to help ensure that those who would log on are credit-card-carrying adults. All nice ideas, but not likely to guarantee that kids can't access the feed.

Marshlack is also quick to point out that his company would make no profit from the venture, that all proceeds would go to charities for victims of the bombing. So what does he gain from this? After all, being a defender of the First Amendment doesn't line the coffers of a burgeoning Internet firm.

"We get to gain that we're a technology company that can handle events like this," he said.

"We're one of the few technology companies that can handle the backbone." In other words, the McVeigh execution in essence would be free advertising for his services--well worth the cost of lawyers and PR people, even if the request is ultimately denied.

And worth it, even though Marshlack acknowledges that there's no way of knowing how much interest there would be in the execution--which means in the fallible world of live Webcasting, there's really no way of guaranteeing that the stream will work.

News or entertainment?
If the request had come from a traditional news organization and not an outfit like Marshlack's, I might be having a different reaction. There's something about an outfit called "Entertainment Network" that seems a bit incongruous with the event. And it's a battle that a news organization should be fighting on behalf of all media, not for a company's own self-interest.

At this point, it doesn't seem to matter. In a letter dated March 28, the DOJ denied the request and invited the Entertainment Network people to apply as a media pool witness to the execution. The letter argued that a Webcast would be counter to typical procedures: "Those media representatives who view the execution must agree to share their observations with other media representatives at Terre Haute before communicating with their parent news organizations. In this manner, all media representatives will have equal ability to report on the execution."

The letter continued: "We believe the Department of Justice regulations strike an appropriate balance between the public's interest in executions and the governmental interests in not sensationalizing the events, maintaining prison security and good order, and respecting the privacy interests of the condemned individual."

What does the world gain from seeing us kill Tim McVeigh? What do we gain as a people? Knowing that McVeigh is dead should be enough. Nothing that anyone at this point can do can reverse the tragedy in Oklahoma or make amends for it. Is it really a right we have as taxpayers to witness every move the government makes? This is one move on the part of our government I don't think we have to see to believe. Especially if the beneficiary is a private company that's trying to build its page views.