5 ms·
In the United States, I highly doubt this would hold up in court. Forcing media to not publish about mass casualty events is antithetical to the First Amendment
by richiebful1 4y ago
In the United States, I highly doubt this would hold up in court. Forcing media to not publish about mass casualty events is antithetical to the First Amendment protection of free speech and press
- tablespoon 4y ago> Forcing media to not publish about mass casualty events is antithetical to the First Amendment protection of free speech and press So? Shouldn't all options be on the table to solve this problem?
- NateEag 4y agoAlmost the fundamental proposition of the USA's governmental system is that some options should never be on the table.
- pc86 4y agoNo, of course not. If you want to argue for constitutional amendments, fine. Just ignoring it is not on the table.
- tablespoon 4y ago> If you want to argue for constitutional amendments, fine. Just ignoring it is not on the table. Of course it is on the table. Just pass a media safety law, and if the Supreme Court dares to get in the way, pack it with supporters of the law. Or just ignore the court, too. Didn't it basically grant itself the power to veto laws?
- pc86 4y agoAh yes, "just ignore the court" one of the hallmarks of a democracy.
- tablespoon 4y ago> Ah yes, "just ignore the court" one of the hallmarks of a democracy. The Supreme Court is probably the least democratic part of American government.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoAll options are worthy of being considered and weighed for efficacy. That said, in the end, some may not be worth it.
- NoImmatureAdHom 4y agoWe should do it with strong norms, just like with suicides. Shame them when they do it and they'll eventually stop.
- BobbyJo 4y agoYou realize the government fines people for cursing on television right? That it also limits access to pornography? There is plenty of room for doing similar things with shooters.
- nradov 4y agoLegally those things are not similar at all. The government (FCC) can only fine broadcasters for cursing and pornography because RF broadcast spectrum is a limited public resource. The government generally has no legal authority to restrict content in other media delivered through other channels such as print, cable TV, and Internet. (There are some limited exceptions for obscenity and commercial content targeted toward children.) Any media restrictions would have to take the form of a voluntary code of conduct. There are centuries worth of Supreme Court rulings on this topic. You should read them before making such suggestions.
- BobbyJo 4y agoI don't remember suggesting a law be passed. The government can do a lot without outright banning information, which I'm certainly against. As you point out, codes of conduct have formed without such, and a little pressure would probably go a long way to doing similar things here. We don't need information to be unobtainable, just not plastered on every possible medium.
- nradov 4y agoYou mentioned "fines", which implies a law. Voluntary codes of conduct can't be enforced with fines. I do agree that media organizations should be more responsible about not glorifying violence or publicizing the identities of violent criminals. A desire for notoriety seems to have been one of the motives in some mass shootings.
- BobbyJo 4y agoI mentioned fines that exist to refute the implication that the first amendment is all powerful and without government limit. The government limits all kinds of speech based on various tests (threats, yelling fire in a crowded room, art vs. pornography, etc.) that have been applied in the supreme court.