4 ms·

All of these suggestions violate the 1st amendment. Also there are no "reporting licenses".

basementcat 7y ago
One possible workaround may be for the President to post something outrageous on Twitter right after the shooting to distract the Media's attention. Then again, maybe the Administration has already been doing this.
ryacko 7y ago
Yes, there is a such thing as reporting licenses, it is ad money.
gojomo 7y ago
Can't some words written down nearly 230 years ago be updated to account for what we know to be dangerous now, in 2019? All safe, responsible reporting can still be allowed. I don't think the founders ever considered 24-hour cable news, or sensational (and often false!) instant-reporting via the internet and social networks. That's what's feeding these copycat mass shooting events today. In 1791, when the 1st Amendment was written, it'd take days for news to reach the next city, and weeks to reach another state! And printing presses were generally only wielded by a small set of accountable people. Of course there's no "reporting licenses" – yet. There are powerful lobbies that have shot down reasonable reporting restrictions, whenever they've been proposed. But such licenses could restore the balance of reporting to that which existed, when the Bill of Rights was written. And the 1st amendment is just an amendment – not even part of the original Constitution. It can be further reinterpreted, or new exceptions added, or revoked, if necessary. We'd still have the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights, in any case.
TallGuyShort 7y ago
We infringe on the 2nd and 4th in the name of safety. Why stop there?
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Both infringements are invariably outrageous overreaches. If there is any greater danger to the average citizen than the evisceration that 4A has suffered, it could only be your proposed destruction of 1A.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    Just to be clear, I was being sarcastic. I don't think rule of law actually exists with regard to the US Constitution anymore.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Haha I wasn't sure...

One possible workaround may be for the President to post something outrageous on Twitter right after the shooting to distract the Media's attention. Then again, maybe the Administration has already been doing this.

ryacko 7y ago

Yes, there is a such thing as reporting licenses, it is ad money.

gojomo 7y ago

Can't some words written down nearly 230 years ago be updated to account for what we know to be dangerous now, in 2019? All safe, responsible reporting can still be allowed. I don't think the founders ever considered 24-hour cable news, or sensational (and often false!) instant-reporting via the internet and social networks. That's what's feeding these copycat mass shooting events today. In 1791, when the 1st Amendment was written, it'd take days for news to reach the next city, and weeks to reach another state! And printing presses were generally only wielded by a small set of accountable people. Of course there's no "reporting licenses" – yet. There are powerful lobbies that have shot down reasonable reporting restrictions, whenever they've been proposed. But such licenses could restore the balance of reporting to that which existed, when the Bill of Rights was written. And the 1st amendment is just an amendment – not even part of the original Constitution. It can be further reinterpreted, or new exceptions added, or revoked, if necessary. We'd still have the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights, in any case.

TallGuyShort 7y ago

We infringe on the 2nd and 4th in the name of safety. Why stop there?

jessaustin 7y ago
Both infringements are invariably outrageous overreaches. If there is any greater danger to the average citizen than the evisceration that 4A has suffered, it could only be your proposed destruction of 1A.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  Just to be clear, I was being sarcastic. I don't think rule of law actually exists with regard to the US Constitution anymore.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Haha I wasn't sure...