QuestionGuy
[Serious] What would be the downsides, if any, of a law that prevented the names of perpetrators of mass shootings from being known publicly, thereby reducing the “copycat effect” and depriving the shooter of any publicity, notoriety, recognition, or fame that they may desire?
[Serious] What would be the downsides, if any, of a law that prevented the names of perpetrators of mass shootings from being known publicly, thereby reducing the “copycat effect” and depriving the shooter of any publicity, notoriety, recognition, or fame that they may desire?
12 Comments
Leave a ReplyLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You couldn’t enforce it. Not very well, at least. Someone would have access to their name and would tell someone they felt they could trust with a secret, and that person would tell someone else, etc.
The elimination of the right to free speech would be a bad thing.
As much as I agree that the perpetrators shouldn’t have their names broadcasted, regulating free speech and freedom of the press doesn’t usually end well (because it doesn’t usually end after it starts)
For wider society? All upside.
But you need to think of the poor helpless News Conglomerates who have turned news into a 24/7 spectator event. A slow news week can always be padded for time with a bit of rolling news coverage, full screen images of the shooters face, preferably looking a little bit evil.
Without access to this easy content they might have to do actual journalism, but that kind of hard investigative work costs so much more money than cheap vox pop from the guy who used to walk the shooters dogs when he went on holiday. Please think of the shareholders OP.
That’s flipping the rights of the general public and the press to be aware of things going on in their communities and world to not being such. That’s something that makes sense for witnesses in not disclosing their personal details with like mob or drug cartels in trials to the general public, but not for what you’re talking about. You can apply that to any crime with the same results.
In the USA, it would be a true violation of the first amendment. The media would drive it straight to the supreme court who would declare it unconstitutional.
The best you would probably get is some kind of tax credit for MSM if they forgo releasing that information.
Cameron Herron, I believe, wasn’t a shooter, but a dumbass who accidentally hit a woman and her baby in a street race, but same problem. At his trial, he wore a mask, but he took it off to drink some water, and that face went viral. He committed double vehicular manslaughter but they wanted him to be released of charges because he was cute looking
Cameron Herron, I believe, wasn’t a shooter, but a dumbass who accidentally hit a woman and her baby in a street race, but same problem. At his trial, he wore a mask, but he took it off to drink some water, and that face went viral. He committed double vehicular manslaughter but they wanted him to be released of charges because he was cute looking
Well it would break the norm of public trials. Which, not great. I am not sure how you would enforce it. If I blogged about it would I get fined?
It seems like a logical error to assume that these perpetrators want notoriety universally. If you mandate silence, I’m sure you are pleasing the ones who don’t want to be remembered badly, or who have a change of heart
sounds good
I am making 💵150 every hour by working on the web at home. A month ago I have gotten $19723 from this activity. This activity is exceptionally astounding and its normal income for me is superior to anything my past office work. This activity is for all and everyone can without much of a stretch join this correct now by utilize this link.
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://salarybaar.com