4 ms·
I 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, co
by BobbyJo 4y ago
I 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.