The case of the death of Trayvon Martin at the hands of George Zimmerman is one that understandably evokes outrage and immense sadness. While the details of the case are still coming to light, the national reaction has become an illustrative cross-section of how Americans view such an episode.

I would like to state here, before presenting anything further in this column, that I join those who are outraged at the death of Trayvon Martin and the possible mishandling of the case by the Sanford, Fla., police. Death weighs heavily on the heart and mind, regardless of the circumstances or context of surrounding events.

Because of this, I believe that this case and ones similar to it must be taken seriously. However, the treatment of such cases must stay away from falling into blind rage and assumption as much as possible, and I believe it is partially the responsibility of the media and influential public figures to ensure that “innocent until proven guilty” is maintained until further evidence becomes public in trial.

Despite this insistence, it is arguable that civil discourse on such controversial topics has become difficult to maintain when it has become easier for people to express their feelings in the public square, namely through social media. Such is the case with Martin’s death and the consideration of Zimmerman’s role.

Last Friday, film director Spike Lee posted the supposed address of George Zimmerman on Twitter. The response was disturbing: Angry “retweets” immediately appeared, spreading the address as the location of the home of a man who has reportedly gone into hiding.

These retweets only added to numerous posts on Twitter of death threats and death wishes against Zimmerman, such as “I swear ill shoot zimmerman myself,” “I want Zimmerman dead,” and, “I would kill Zimmerman if I knew I wouldn’t go to jail…” as listed in a March 24 post at online news website Twitchy.com.

And, despite the fact that releasing a personal address in the manner that Spike Lee did is inherently questionable, it turns out that he had in fact shared the wrong address with the world.

According to an article posted Tuesday at the Orlando Sentinel’s website, the residents living at the shared address were actually an elderly couple in their 70s. Due to the sudden influx of media requests, hate mail, and expressed concern for their safety, the couple decided to move out of their home to avoid any possible harm.

Given the manner in which so many have reacted to Trayvon Martin’s death, the couple’s decision is understandable. Lee posted an apology on Wednesday, and it appears that the erroneous post containing the address has since been removed, but the impact of Lee’s actions reach further.

Spike Lee holds a special position as a celebrity Twitter user, and a mere glance at his Twitter feed shows he has been an active advocate for Trayvon Martin and his family. While his advocacy is respectable, blindly sharing the purported address of a man who had already been subjected to numerous death threats, regardless of how serious or severe they are, is dangerous and irresponsible.

This incident shows the dark side of the increased pervasiveness of social media in our public conversations, and how lives can be negatively affected.

It also reflects the need for discernment in times of such emotional upheaval in relation to how people conduct themselves in the public square.

This incident is far from its resolution, but it is important for all to remember that civility, not assumptive rage, should rule the day.

Greg Sainer is a senior communication studies major. He can be reached at 581-7942 or [email protected].