4 ms·

"There are already restrictions on speech..." There are particular categories of speech that aren't considered to be "protected speech". And those categories c

"There are already restrictions on speech..." There are particular categories of speech that aren't considered to be "protected speech". And those categories can't be expanded just because some politicians and judges think it's a good idea. "that same reasoning is what allows gun control." A lot of what we consider "gun control" is under active constitutional debate. Why go to all this trouble? I agree with the general idea that we shouldn't glorify mass shooters. But all we have to do is stop clicking and start to develop a cultural idea that it's wrong to report is a way that makes killers (in)famous. Mainstream outlets will stop doing it and the fringe is not very important.

giantg2 4y ago
"And those categories can't be expanded just because some politicians and judges think it's a good idea." Why not? Isn't that how the current ones came to be? "But all we have to do is stop clicking and start to develop a cultural idea that it's wrong to report is a way that makes killers (in)famous." That would be great, but what would that look like? I don't see a mechanism for incentizing them via culture. The only thing I can see is if people start sueing the media like they have gun makers for improper marketing. "A lot of what we consider "gun control" is under active constitutional debate." Is it really a lot? It seems the majority of gun control regulations still stand under the new one prong standard.
- chmod600 4y ago
  "Why not? Isn't that how the current ones came to be?" There's an interesting history of rights prior to the Constitution. But now that we have a constitution, there's a defined process for amending it. Of course, there is still room for interpretation. But if you allow politicians and judges to wildly change the constitution on a whim, you might as well not have one. What you are suggesting qualifies as such a wild change to the notion of a free press, and should not be permitted without an amendment. And if such an amendment were proposed, I think it would get very little support.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "There's an interesting history of rights prior to the Constitution. But now that we have a constitution, there's a defined process for amending it." Yet the courts and legislature have added restrictions without following that process. "But if you allow politicians and judges to wildly change the constitution on a whim, you might as well not have one." I generally agree. However, it's not a radical change to include killers names under the "fighting words" standard since it is "inherently likely to produce a violent response" as evidenced in research and through anecdote/commonsense. "And if such an amendment were proposed, I think it would get very little support." Why is that? The right should support it since it's a solution that doesn't involve further firearm restrictions. The left should support it since they want to take action on the issue and make meaningful changes, which this is. And there doesn't appear to be any issue with restricting the killer's name as it doesn't interfere with the message or ideas the journalist would be reporting.
    - chmod600 4y ago
      "Yet the courts and legislature have added restrictions without following that process." I don't mean to suggest that it's perfect or followed perfectly. As I said, there's room for interpretation. "However, it's not a radical change to include killers names under the 'fighting words'" I disagree and I doubt you'd find many people who understand our legal system that agree with you. "Why [would it not get much support]?" Hypothetically, let's say I'm wrong. Wouldn't all those people who support it be able to pressure mainstream outlets to suppress information that glorifies killers? Sounds like a much easier alternative that would produce the desired result. Personally, I already avoid reading news articles about mass killers. I usually wait a while, and then read wikipedia or something if I'm interested to know.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        "I disagree and I doubt you'd find many people who understand our legal system that agree with you." Care to elaborate? Protections under the Constitution are actually more likely to have the interpretations change over time. I also don't appreciate the insinuated insult. "Wouldn't all those people who support it be able to pressure mainstream outlets to suppress information that glorifies killers?" It's much more effective via law. You have many people who are indifferent, so you only need more support than the detractors (like how an NPS works). Not only that, but you could still have a minority who support a network that still releases the name, undermining the others who don't.

giantg2 4y ago

"And those categories can't be expanded just because some politicians and judges think it's a good idea." Why not? Isn't that how the current ones came to be? "But all we have to do is stop clicking and start to develop a cultural idea that it's wrong to report is a way that makes killers (in)famous." That would be great, but what would that look like? I don't see a mechanism for incentizing them via culture. The only thing I can see is if people start sueing the media like they have gun makers for improper marketing. "A lot of what we consider "gun control" is under active constitutional debate." Is it really a lot? It seems the majority of gun control regulations still stand under the new one prong standard.

chmod600 4y ago
"Why not? Isn't that how the current ones came to be?" There's an interesting history of rights prior to the Constitution. But now that we have a constitution, there's a defined process for amending it. Of course, there is still room for interpretation. But if you allow politicians and judges to wildly change the constitution on a whim, you might as well not have one. What you are suggesting qualifies as such a wild change to the notion of a free press, and should not be permitted without an amendment. And if such an amendment were proposed, I think it would get very little support.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "There's an interesting history of rights prior to the Constitution. But now that we have a constitution, there's a defined process for amending it." Yet the courts and legislature have added restrictions without following that process. "But if you allow politicians and judges to wildly change the constitution on a whim, you might as well not have one." I generally agree. However, it's not a radical change to include killers names under the "fighting words" standard since it is "inherently likely to produce a violent response" as evidenced in research and through anecdote/commonsense. "And if such an amendment were proposed, I think it would get very little support." Why is that? The right should support it since it's a solution that doesn't involve further firearm restrictions. The left should support it since they want to take action on the issue and make meaningful changes, which this is. And there doesn't appear to be any issue with restricting the killer's name as it doesn't interfere with the message or ideas the journalist would be reporting.
  - chmod600 4y ago
    "Yet the courts and legislature have added restrictions without following that process." I don't mean to suggest that it's perfect or followed perfectly. As I said, there's room for interpretation. "However, it's not a radical change to include killers names under the 'fighting words'" I disagree and I doubt you'd find many people who understand our legal system that agree with you. "Why [would it not get much support]?" Hypothetically, let's say I'm wrong. Wouldn't all those people who support it be able to pressure mainstream outlets to suppress information that glorifies killers? Sounds like a much easier alternative that would produce the desired result. Personally, I already avoid reading news articles about mass killers. I usually wait a while, and then read wikipedia or something if I'm interested to know.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      "I disagree and I doubt you'd find many people who understand our legal system that agree with you." Care to elaborate? Protections under the Constitution are actually more likely to have the interpretations change over time. I also don't appreciate the insinuated insult. "Wouldn't all those people who support it be able to pressure mainstream outlets to suppress information that glorifies killers?" It's much more effective via law. You have many people who are indifferent, so you only need more support than the detractors (like how an NPS works). Not only that, but you could still have a minority who support a network that still releases the name, undermining the others who don't.