In the wake of the Santa Barbara shootings lots of people are talking about the extent to which the killer was involved with online "men's rights" groups and the extent to which exposure to "pick-up artist" communities and online porn had influenced his expectations about relationships and attitudes towards women and men around him. As has been widely reported, he left a video on YouTube and a "manifesto" in which he said he was angry that women were not interested in him and planned violence in reaction to this. Having written a piece myself on how sinister the pick-up artist movement can be I was interested to see what links others were drawing. Perhaps I should have known better, Daily Mail, but I clicked a link to your page... (I've done a screen grab because I don't want to publish a link)
You claim the moral high ground by not printing her name. Obviously a slightly pixellated photograph is going to leave her completely identifiable to anyone who really knows her. AND you printed details of work that she's done and details about her family and their jobs. Frankly you would not have to be Sherlock Holmes to fill in the blanks.
And lets look at the details. You claim that Elliot Rodger was teased by this woman leading to him developing a hatred of all women. On that, three things:
(1) Where is the evidence that any teasing took place? In a video made by a man who overtly hates women. Is that a reliable source of evidence? Of course not. In fact it seems clear from his actual words (if you had bothered to listen to them) that in fact he had a crush on her and felt teased because she wasn't interested. THAT IS NOT TEASING, WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE INTERESTED IN GUYS WHO FANCY THEM.
(2) One woman being mean to you (which all the evidence suggests she wasn't) is not a good reason to hate all women. Generalising based on one individual is one of the most basic forms of bigotry. Why haven't you mentioned this (other than by doing it throughout the rest of your paper)? Otherwise one guy shooting people would be a good reason to lock all men up (not just Daily Mail journalists).
(3) When did this awful alleged teasing take place? When she was in seventh grade (age 12 or 13). Yes seriously. YOU'RE BLAMING A TWELVE-YEAR-OLD GIRL FOR A MASS MURDER AND PRINTING HER PHOTO.
And you repeatedly mention the killer was a virgin and was angry about being a virgin. Could you perhaps explain WHAT YOU EXPECT A 12-YEAR-OLD TO DO ABOUT THAT?
Perhaps the most sickening sentence is this one "MailOnline has approached the girl for a comment but she has yet to respond.". You rang her up? What did you say??
"Hey really sorry to hear about people in your community being brutally murdered by someone you were at school with. Yeah you probably heard about it because he mentioned you in a video. Yeah, yeah, that guy. On the news, yeah. Stop crying. So we're going to write a piece about you on the world's most-read news website and print some sexy pictures of you we stole off Facebook in which we're going to be, erm, pondering the theory, that maybe the multiple horrible murders were actually your fault. We were wondering if you'd like to make a statement about... Why are you screaming at me? I'm a what? ... A sick, disgusting, immoral asshole? Yeah I get that a lot, it's kindof in the job description. So any statement from you or shall I just say you have yet to respond?"
New low, even for you Daily Mail. New low.