Is this a fair comparison?

[dakota.potts]

I was just reading about the Santa Monica shooter and how mass killers tend to be suicidal people who want to be famous.

I had the split second thought that instead of going after guns, we should pass a law requiring news agencies to withhold names of shooters. Obviously this would work about as well but it really was just a half second thought.

I then had the natural realization that this would be a huge infringement on first amendment rights. But then I also thought that we are trying to impose "reasonable restrictions" on gun rights. Objectively (if we can look at it from a standpoint other than "If they want our rights, we'll take theirs"), can this be considered a fair comparison? Assume that restricting the reporting of the names of these individuals would save "just one life".

Would a law such as this be a similar comparison to the attempt at banning assault weapons?

[2ndsojourn]

I agree that anything done to lessen the 'glorification' of these acts is a step in the right direction, including withholding the name of the shooter. They withhold the names of some crime victims, namely sex crimes, so personally, I don't see why not the shooter.

Especially if it 'saves just one life', or 'it's for the children'.

[Punisher_1]

That would never fly with the media that lives for the drama of it all to gain viewership and increase some imaginary network score. A restriction would be called an infringement by them. They have to interview everyone who knew the criminal to uncover information to push their agendas. I refuse to watch any of it but I know it has no impact.

[Tom Servo]

So...because they want to take some of our rights, we should take some of theirs? I recoil at the implications.

There has been a trend lately of the media placing less emphasis on the names of shooters, and I think that's a good policy.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, if would save one life then of course we should muzzle the press.

As we should report the mental health status of everyone to the government and monitor all electronic communications.

If it would save one life - then it is a good idea.

[dakota.potts]

Obviously I recoiled at the thought. My question at its root is this; would a proposed plan to censor media coverage of information on mass shooting perpretrators be equivalent to a proposed plan to restrict firearms and access to them? If not, in what ways would it be different?

[Jim March]

I'm at a point where as ugly as this solution is, I'm in favor of it.

These guys are doing this for the fame. Deny them the fame, dead or alive doesn't matter.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

The news agencies should consciously decide on their own accord not to glorify the shooters. It should never be from law.

[Armorer-at-Law]

My question at its root is this; would a proposed plan to censor media coverage of information on mass shooting perpretrators be equivalent to a proposed plan to restrict firearms and access to them?

There are many laws that could have a real effect of reducing crime, including violent crime. Those laws would involve infringing our 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendment rights. But those would be no more acceptable than infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights.

[KMAX]

I agree with Dr. big Bird on this one. That would be RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Either idea is ridiculous. A free press and the right to bear arms are bulwarks against tyranny. Living in a perfectly safe dictatorship is not attractive.

BTW, the number of people who die in random rampages is very, very small as compared to the number killed by alcohol. I suggest an amendment to ban alcohol consumption.

Also, it is too simplistic to say they do it for fame. Let's not be driven by what is 'street' wisdom in order to gut the Constitution.

[fragtagninja]

A fair comparison yes. Does not make it anymore right than them trying to take our guns? No. Personally I think it is our reactions that need to change. Without personal responsibility they are only going to impose more restrictions on us. Thus while a fair comparison it is not even a remotely good idea. We must change the way we look at this stuff and stop letting it panic us. When we do that the the thrill will be gone. Our current reactions are simply glorifying this behavior. The power to truly make changes for the better lies with the people. Not government policies, not new laws, not more restrictions on freedom. Period.
Cool?

[glh17]

It would be impossible to keep that sort of information secret in today's media market. Maybe if law enforcement could keep it off public record, but I doubt it they could and it would most likely leak if they tried.

There's just too many news outlets today to keep much of anything secret. Each of the them wants to be the first to report. Of course, the reason they want to be the first is that they will attract the public. It's the public's desire to know that keeps the whole thing going.

[Sanity Challenged]

I'd never support a law that impinges on the 1st such as this, but I would be thrilled if a media outlet actually decided to be responsible and stop publicizing the killers. I bet you can name at least a half dozen mass shooters. If you pay close enough attention to the news, you probably know their favorite band, their favorite video game, and what they had for breakfast on the morning of the incident. But I bet most folks can't name even 1 of the heroic first responders that brought an end to one of these incidents.

We make celebrities out of the wrong people.

[Spats McGee]

While I agree that it would be good policy on the part of the media to withhold the names of the shooters, I would be very, very reluctant to make it law, for reasons already expressed by othere. In particular, Tom Servo and Armorer-at-Law.

[Punisher_1]

Reporting incidents as news would be one thing but to sensationalize every aspect of it is lame. In the Connecticut Murders CNN actually used a SMART board to show how the police systematically cleared the facility with diagrams and movement details. Nothing like giving out tactics for future use to show stupidity for the sake of viewership. It reminds me of Hurricane coverage where they talk for hours about rain, waves and wind in a continuous babble that says nothing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Constitution protects bad taste. It's very simple.

[Evan Thomas]

The Constitution protects bad taste. It's very simple.

Well said.

Mainstream media aren't in the news business, responsibly or otherwise. They're in the business of entertaining people in order to get as many viewers as possible for their advertisers.

Part of the problem is that people have been conditioned to regard the doings of celebrities as news, and they see it as their right to know as much as possible about their personal lives. When someone like the Sandy Hook shooter becomes an instant celebrity, people are fascinated by the person: who is he, why did he do this, what did he have for breakfast...

It's a competitive business, and the way to succeed is to give people what they want. Short of passing legislation (which I'd oppose), reporting on these people isn't likely to change.

[hermannr]

They already withhold the names of juveniles (victims and criminals).

I do not think the WITHHOLDING of the information would be an infringement on the 1st, but a PROHIBITION on publishing the information would.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree with that. Criminologists have felt that the next shooter is spurred on. The re-runs of the kids fleeing Columbine and the parents of the victims crying is just vicarious reinforcement for those in the planning stages.

However, legal regulation is not a good thing. BTW, for those who argue for such based on research - there is research suggesting the Bible eggs on some of these aggressive impulses. So ban that?