When Charles Manson gave his televised interviews from prison, the cult leader and murderer was offered a virtual megaphone to the world. Adoring fans wrote him letters and even proposals of marriage as his following only grew.
Alex Arreaza, a lawyer representing a survivor of one of America’s deadliest school shootings, wanted to stop the Parkland gunman from seeking the same glorification.
It gave him an idea.
Arreaza would convince Nikolas Cruz, the teenager who massacred 17 students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018 and injured many more, to sign away the rights to his name — to one of the young men he tried to murder.
“No movies, no books, no crime documentaries, no media interviews,” Arreaza told The Times, unless Cruz gets written consent from his client, Anthony Borges. “He can’t do anything now without Anthony’s say so.”
Advertisement
Borges was the most gravely wounded of the 2018 Florida shooting’s 17 survivors. Aged 15 at the time, he was shot five times as he barricaded a door trying to shield his classmates. Borges had to have a third of his lung removed and has undergone dozens of surgeries in the years since.
“Anthony has gone through so much and has had a tough time with the PTSD. I don’t want him turning on Netflix or opening the paper and seeing some interview that traumatises him all over again,” said Arreaza. “The hope is the public will never hear from [Cruz] again.”
The highly unusual agreement was part of a settlement reached between Cruz and Borges’s lawyers last month, days before the civil trial was due to start. It is already being held up as a legal precedent that could help victims reclaim the narrative around tragedies.
“What people don’t realise is that you can sign away your First Amendment right [to free speech],” said Arreaza.
The settlement is influenced in part by the Son of Sam law passed in New York in the 1970s after the conviction of serial killer David Berkowitz. The law prevents criminals from profiting from books or shows about their crimes by allowing states to seize any proceeds and use them to compensate victims’ families.
Advertisement
But the Florida interpretation goes much further. Alexandra Roberts, professor of law at Northeastern University, pointed out that Borges will not only control the commercial use of Cruz’s name but also his ability to tell his own story. “That is particularly unusual and perhaps more concerning from a framework of the media and the public’s access to information, as well as Cruz’s speech and autonomy,” she told The Times.
Cruz, now 25, is serving 34 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole. He agreed to the conditions of the settlement over a Zoom call with Arreaza and Borges’s father from prison. Borges, who had ambitions as a teenager to play football professionally in Brazil, could not bring himself to come face to face with the gunman again.
“I just told him [Cruz], ‘You know, at your sentencing you said you are really sorry you would do anything for the victims. Well, here it is’, Arreaza said. “He agreed to it right away.”
The settlement also requires Cruz to donate his brain to science so it can be studied to better understand mass murderers.
The ruling in Florida came days before a judge in Nashville, Tennessee, made a similar judgment in another school shooting case.
Advertisement
Audrey Hale, a 28-year-old transgender former student of the Covenant School in the city, shot dead six people on campus in 2023. Hale, who was killed by police during the rampage, left behind at least 20 journals, a suicide note and a memoir.
As part of the effort to keep Hale’s writings from the public, Hale’s parents transferred ownership of the property to the victims’ families, who then argued in court that they should be allowed to determine who has access to them. They claimed unfettered access to the writings would further traumatise their community, and risk inspiring copycats.
In her ruling, Judge Chancellor I’Ashea Myles said she thought it was possible other would-be killers could use Hale’s manifesto as a blueprint. She acknowledged that her ruling was “novel”, but ultimately determined the writings were protected by federal copyright law.
The plaintiffs warned the decision could have far-reaching implications, making it easier to hide evidence of a crime from the public.
“To say that evidence collected by police can be copyrighted by the criminal, or the surviving parent or spouse of the criminal, does not bode well for the transparency of the police or the judicial system,” said Deborah Fisher, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government.
Advertisement
The dual lawsuits, which offer new avenues for victims to seek justice beyond financial compensation, have been met with mixed reactions from legal scholars.
“To the extent that (the Nashville) court construed copyright to trump public records laws or the ability for police and reporters to access and share useful information, that seems problematic,” Roberts said. “But if victims’ families are able to make decisions about publication and reproduction of copyrighted works that don’t obstruct crucial access and they find that to be a comfort, then maybe copyright law is a useful tool.”
Eric Osborne, an attorney for the victims in the Nashville case, issued a statement from one of the parents of a child killed in the shooting.
“May this evil die with the shooter,” Osborne said. “May we deny her any victory in death. May her name, her face, her writings be blotted from history.”
