ABSTRACT
Social memory and collective memory come into conflict as community members debated how people should understand Schultz’s and Paul’s deaths. Networked contestation of social and public memory is articulated in a special issue of Argumentation and Advocacy, where scholars explored “how new forms of mediation alter the norms and conduct of argumentation”. In networked spaces, individuals deliberate about the meanings of events, identities, and future actions. Social memory perspectives expressed on the local Facebook argued for family privacy to allow grieving. Collective memory commenters disputed characterizations of the murder as outside the realm of public judgment. Both the social and collective approaches functioned for parts of the community and demonstrated the dynamic tension between public and private memories. The reliance on epideictic discourse to facilitate social memory highlights the potentially regressive nature of privileging the needs of family and friends in the wake of a public crime.
