Who says I'm confusing anything? Put it like this: You have an ideal of press freedom. They have an ideal of a harmonious society. In certain edge cases, th

Who says I'm confusing anything? Put it like this: You have an ideal of press freedom. They have an ideal of a harmonious society. In certain edge cases, the two are evidently not compatible. Here you suppose that they should prioritize press freedom. They, however, believe that promoting societal harmony takes priority. (By this I mean a press blackout, no lionization of the perpetrator, no "manifesto," no public investigation of the motive for the crime -- for indeed no motive could justify it -- and basically none of the circus that you'd see in the West following such an event.) So. Even if the rules are unclear, or if there's no time for official rulemaking, they exercise sovereign power to attain their preferred end state. You call this unwise? I think that it's an excellent example of real, old-fashioned sovereignty: The ability to transcend the written law and make exceptions if the sovereign believes that they serve the public good. Besides, any professional journalist has probably figured all of this out a long time ago, and makes an effort to work within the paradigm.