3 ms·
"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
by 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.