上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 299

[–]Jabronious1090 129ポイント130ポイント  (18子コメント)

It would probably be like Harry Potter in the news "he who must not be named"

[–]SwearWords 81ポイント82ポイント  (12子コメント)

Maybe "the killer," or "the suspect" would suffice.

[–]Jaksuhn 34ポイント35ポイント  (7子コメント)

Yeah, the Harry Potter version would just make people want to find out who it is. "The killer/suspect" just sounds casual.

[–]japooki 14ポイント15ポイント  (5子コメント)

Funny how "the killer" is a happy medium/casual way of expressing the situation

[–]SwearWords 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Isn't the idea behind hiding a killer's identity reporting the murder while not inspiring infamy-seekers to commit copycat killings?

[–]Gemeye [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

"The cunt"

The minister for heath was assassinated by an unknown cunt early yesterday evening.

[–]SwearWords [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"This just in: Police have located and locked up The Cunt, though eye witnesses are reporting acts of police brutality at the scene. 'Them cops sure gave The Cunt a lickin' says one witness."

[–]bejoe905 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

See, the problem is that in that universe, Voldemort has a name, and everyone already knows it. They use He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named as a way to talk about him without invoking the name. It's a specific way to talk about a specific person.

In this hypothetical situation, the (unnamed) killer potentially could change daily, if not hourly. It would be confusing to assign a specific name to multiple people.

[–]Antonskarp [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Nope. It would be more like "Florida man".

[–]BombastixderTeutone [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I like the idea i read one reddit on the day of the shooting.

Name the shooters like hurricans but with really ridiculous names

I know this is a dumb idea but it sounds great in my head

[–]majora06 [スコア非表示]  (17子コメント)

I'm no expert in Dutch law, but in the Netherlands suspects' names are not broadcasted in their whole.

Say, Peter Black murdered someone. He'd get arrested, then he is suspect Peter B. During his trial and after conviction, he is stil referred to a Peter B. in announcements to the public.

I believe this is to ensure the privacy of suspects and convicts. For suspects this is important, because technically you're still innocent until the judge rules you guilty. For convicts this is important for after their punishment: once you served your time in jail, you're a free man again and should not be burdened (too much) by your past.

Perhaps someone could explain this in more detail.

[–]Red_Dog1880 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Same in Belgium (and a lot of other countries).

It's partly because until someone is actually sentenced they have a certain right to privacy, just like everybody else.

Courts have to balance the right to privacy of the suspect on one hand, and freedom of the press on the other.

Which imo is the best way to go about it.

[–]EnkiduV3 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

American here. Please explain this "right to privacy" thing that everyone deserves.

[–]GeminiK [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's that 4th amendment that only hippies and liberals like.

[–]Jonne [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Say you're a suspect in a murder investigation. The police ask you to come by the police station (or in the US: send a SWAT team, shoot your pets and destroy half of your house) and after some interrogation and following up some more leads they find you're innocent after all.

In the US, the press will have plastered your name allover the place, ruining your reputation in the process and severely hampering your chances of getting a job. If you have the rule in place that suspects' names aren't to be published until convicted, you're not ruining an innocent person's life because the police got the wrong guy.

[–]RaDeusSchool [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

In Sweden we call them by their age, tho media sometimes name them by location or modus operandi.

32-åringen = the thirty-two year old

Hagamannen = location of incident and gender

Lasermannen = the murderer used a rifle with a laser

They aren't named until after sentencing.

[–]kgtx5 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

once you served your time in jail, you're a free man again and should not be burdened (too much) by your past

Depends greatly on the crime. Prison is treated as a place of punishment and not rehabilitation, if somebody raped someone or murdered someone, then they should be burdened by their crime in the interest of public safety.

[–]KindtoEveryone 298ポイント299ポイント  (151子コメント)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;....

This is the First Amendment and the keystone of the Bill of Rights. This law would be unconstitutional.

[–]Recognizant 255ポイント256ポイント  (65子コメント)

But... we do.

Janet Jackson's nipple. Censoring middle fingers, the seven dirty words... We censor things that are broadcasted all the time.

At least in this case, there might actually be a sound public safety reason to censor them. People don't go on killing sprees because the news anchor dropped an F-bomb. They do when the news anchor spends three weeks talking about every facet of the last killer's life.

[–]DiaDeLosMuertos 68ポイント69ポイント  (44子コメント)

Broadcast channels... iirc are actually owned by the government so they have a say in what can get shown.the rest of the channels have guidelines against it. They can show porn, butif they did advertisers would no longer advertise on that channel.

[–]kingPLoPz 24ポイント25ポイント  (4子コメント)

You could definitely not broadcast anything you want, especially porn. That's why there's fines for airing prohibited content.

[–]Not_a_porn_ 58ポイント59ポイント  (2子コメント)

You're confusing cable with broadcast.

[–]ScrewAttackThis [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They're talking about cable channels. Where there's already porn.

[–]crashnburn254 7ポイント8ポイント  (36子コメント)

Then the government should sensor the names of mass shooters on broadcast news and the public should put pressure on cable channels to sensor themselves.

[–]northbud [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Government shouldn't do anything. The broadcasters should do it themselves. They withhold the names of rape victims out of respect for the victims. They could easily do the same thing with these murderers, out of respect for their victims. Unfortunately, none of this coverage has anything to do with respect or decency, it is all about the twenty four hour news cycle and instilling fear and morbid curiosity in the population. That way they tune in and come back for more and consume more advertising. At the end of the day they are causing more carnage than the original killer themselves. Every time another psycho gets inspired by what they have seen. How many of these kids have been found to have read and watched videos extensively about the subject? Quite a few it seems.

[–]war_bot_2 18ポイント19ポイント  (18子コメント)

Jesus, think about what you're asking. Of course I don't believe murderers should be glamorized, but what kind of precedent does that set? Things are censored all the time but the more specific the laws are about what can be constitutionally censored the less integrity our freedoms of speech and press have

[–]crashnburn254 15ポイント16ポイント  (15子コメント)

Re-read my post.

There is no violation of the constitution. The government already sensors broadcast channels under the FCC. Broadcast channels are not protected by the first amendment and face fines for not doing what the government wants.

The second thing I am proposing is just public pressure of boycotts. Also not a violation.

[–]Lowbacca19771 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

It's a violation of the concept of free speech, though. I mean, you can also find plenty of people that think the public should pressure cable channels to censor themselves by not having, say, gay people. Heck, that's exactly what the film industry did for decades.

[–]crashnburn254 8ポイント9ポイント  (7子コメント)

Protecting free speech doesn't mean you can't disagree with things. People absolutely can choose not to watch shows about gay people.

[–]Lowbacca19771 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Not watching something and pressuring someone to censor things are two different concepts

[–]jcc10 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Actually, it's not. It's called boycotting, if everyone boycotted the first channel(s) to announce the name or other personal details, they would stop announcing them.

Also, it would be nice if so called "national tragedies" would be not quite as sensationlised as other news.

[–]Dr_Taliban_Me_Banana [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Guess what, I disagree with you. I would a) want to know the shooters name, and b) let others know.

[–]crashnburn254 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Ok? I'm not saying you should never be able to find out who it was somewhere on the internet. You can probably do the same for the names of rape victims currently, or you can probably find in depth descriptions of suicides (both things that the media voluntarily censors themselves about).

But I'm sick of the media giving 24/7 news coverage to asshole murderers and portraying them as some sort of taxi-driver esque tortured antihero who struck back at society. It just encourages more shooters. Why can I name every major mass shooter of the last 10 years but not a single victim?

[–]Pennoyer_v_Neff [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The argument is that there's a public safety interest in the censureship. It's the same reason why the government is allowed to prevent people from broadcasting speech that is considered incitement.

No such argument exists for censuring gay people, so your slippery slope argument does not apply.

[–]Lowbacca19771 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm referring to the public pressure of boycotts

[–]hazybrigade [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Democratic mandate means you shouldn't have to worry about corruption of intent. You do have to consider it so I'm not dismissing your 'worst case scenario' reasoning but these things are obvious to everyone. What is clear is the problem is systemic, ideas aren't good or bad, they're tools. But tools can also be wielded as weapons it's the person holding them who decides.

[–]Maniacal_Musings [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, I would say this... on the other end of the spectrum.

By not censoring names you can have someone wrongly accused of a crime made in to the guilty party in the public eye within a matter of seconds. "Name so and so accused of (insert horrid act) was arrested today and is waiting on trial".... now regardless of the fact that the person is guilty or innocent his/her life will be ruined due to the naming and exposure.

Now, if we were to sensor the names and designations there in we could also avoid that outcome. If ignoring the glamorization bit we can avoid all sorts of unwanted and harmful outcomes beyond that by not naming specific people on news broadcasts etc.

The naming of individuals can be used to lead to all sorts of outcomes which are much hard to accomplish by not being allowed to name them.

[–]Hularuns 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

Censorship only ever leads to more censorship, which is an oxymoron of freedom.

[–]trpftw 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yes there should essentially be no limit to freedom of speech ideally. However, there will always be exceptions due to the damage they cause.

Exceptions to the first amendment:

  • certain specific death threats
  • libel (leads to lawsuit of damages)
  • inciting a riot or lynch mob directly

There are other murky areas of the law, like talking about hijacking on planes and terrorist threats. Certain kinds of porn are considered criminal and not a 1st amendment right.

As such somethings like naming mass murderers who do random targeting, should be fined. Maybe not prison time, but fining them a certain percentage so that they don't profit off of glorifying or spreading the word about a mass murderer to other potential copycats.

A slippery slope cannot be argued here because simply not naming mass murderers isn't going to cause "more censorship later."

[–]NotAsSmartAsYou [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

A slippery slope cannot be argued here because simply not naming mass murderers isn't going to cause "more censorship later."

The slippery slope is: it will then be made illegal to name "enemies of the state". And then it will be illegal to name people like Snowden. And then it will be illegal to even discuss what Snowden did.

[–]WeylandTheDwarf [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Naming someone and discussing what they did are two totally different things. I see no reason Snowden's name was ever relevant or needed to be known.

[–]Golden_Flame0 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's not the difference between the but the bridge that is built.

[–]abcdefgf [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I really, really hope you're just playing devils advocate here.

[–]crashnburn254 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Then abolish the FCC I guess.

[–]NADER_THE_GATOR 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

FCC doesn't have the power to "censor". All the bleeping and blurring is done by the TV stations. FCC only fines them when they air the wrong sruff. Supreme Court has ruled that obscene material is not protected by the first amendment. I don't really remember the argument justices made but I think they said obscene material are not really ideas being communicated and endanger the American family or way of life or some shit. So that's why FCC will never get abolished

[–]creepystains [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Since when did the first amendment only apply to ideas being communicated?
What if an obscenity is being used to communicate an idea?

[–]WeylandTheDwarf [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Repeatedly naming a shooter and giving them publicity is obscene so they could make the same argument.

[–]skeletalsound [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If only we didn't have to create laws to pressure media not to.. If only they could just naturally understand and consider the consequences of glorifying the perpetrators in violent crimes. But it's all about the views, baby. It's about sales, that's why Times put the Boston bombers face as the title page. And I, admittedly, am drawn to their lives. Well, maybe not the Boston bombers specifically and others similar to those guys, but i always have such a strong curiosity for serial killers and reading about them. I wish the media didn't do it, but I can't help my morbid curiosity. They could definitely tone it down tho and not spend weeks reporting on them or showing pics. I don't believe in full censorship but they could at least just tone it WAY down.

[–]Kevin_Wolf [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Close, but the government doesn't own CBS, ABC, NBC, nor any of the other channels. However, the FCC has set rules about what can and can't be broadcast on the airwaves. Cable, satellite, and any other subscriber service are just that: subscriber services. Because they're not broadcast freely available to the public on the airwaves, the indecency rules don't apply to them. That's why they can say "shit" on South Park.

[–]Victorious_Oppositio 12ポイント13ポイント  (8子コメント)

Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment and because the airwaves are regulated by the federal government, they can pass laws against obscenity.

[–]crornel [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

What? Define obscenity.

If I define obscenity as anything that mentions grapes (I was traumatized as a young child in a grape accident), then what is stoping me from demanding a law to make the mention of grapes illegal?

Other definitions might include sex acts (which is insane considering it's the whole reason we exist). But that's the thing. The government should never define obscenity. It's just a 'justified' way to shut us up.

[–]Victorious_Oppositio [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Sure: 1) A thing must be prurient in nature

2) A thing must be completely devoid of scientific, political, educational, or social value

3) A thing must violate the local community standards

If it meets all three of these things, it is obscenity. Our obscenity laws (and I'm talking how our government handles these things) are a well-known part of our courts decisions.

[–]Farkeman [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

how does pair of tits fall in under any of these?
1. Just natural human anatomy.
2. This point makes no sense at all and I'm certain pair of tits would have higher educational, political, scientific or social value then the latest episode of the kardashians.
3. Don't even understand this one.

[–]stormington [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's the Miller Three Prong test if you'd like to read up on it further.

[–]HaloFarts [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You just defined an ambiguous word with more ambiguous words. local community standards wtf

[–]Victorious_Oppositio [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This is literally the definition of the SCOTUS and how the law is enforced. You can be arrested for obscenity, then a trial has to prove the above. If we are talking about Janet Jackson, then it is up to the FCC who enforces federal regulations. Take it up with them.

[–]HaloFarts [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Would yelling "cunt fuck shit ass bitch nigger dick" in public be something that they could arrest you for? Not being a dick, this is a real question.

[–]approachinginfinity [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

As other commenters have pointed out, obscenity is a legal term with a specific and well-defined meaning.

As for the argument about getting rid of obscenity altogether, that's a tricky one. It has been used in many cases to restrict the dissemination of child porn and sexual abuse of animals.

You could argue that courts' interpretation of obscenity needs to be tweaked, but it would be difficult to make the argument that there should be no restrictions to the First Amendment.

[–]Tillhony 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The thing is we can still find Janet Jacksons nipple, hear those dirty words, in the privacy of our own persons. And be able to view them privately without the government trying to chop our heads of if caught.

[–]RulerOfSlides [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And, frankly, it's improved drastically over the years.

[–]hoochyuchy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The reason that TV is so censored, at least in the way it was explained to me, is that back before cable was a thing they would broadcast TV over the air. Because the air (more specifically, the frequencies through which the broadcast traveled) was either public domain or government controlled certain "morality" standards had to be put in place in order to prevent just anything going on the air, kind of like how you can't put up a giant billboard with boobs on it on a highway.

Then, later on, cable TV became a thing and because these cables were privately owned and only accessible through a private contract the restrictions based on 'morality' didn't hold weight anymore, but companies kept them around because they wanted to be able to be watched in public spaces.

[–]jswizle9386 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

None of those are illegal. On the main FCC regulated channels yes. The cable channels self censor. It is in no way the law for CNN to censor anything, they just do for various advertising and consumer reasons.

[–]proROKexpat [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

We can make laws that discourage them

Example

"Mention the shooters name, or picture be barred from all federal property...to include congress/white house."

[–]fkinusername_432 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

All those laws ... Janet Jackson's nipple, middle fingers, the seven dirty words ... they're also unconstitutional. However, broadcasters agree with these laws, and so do not fight them.

[–]Miskatonic_River 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

Obscenity laws are not unconstitutional.

[–]EvilNalu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Porn (at least most porn) and swearing do not meet the constitutional obscenity test. But different rules apply to broadcast and the Supreme Court upheld a ban on 'indecency' in broadcasts.

[–]Carighan [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Important note: This would not have to be a law.

In Germany we have an agreed-upon press codex. I guess the same goes for other countries? A big part is to not sensationalize or promote violent crime, and to try protect both the victim and the perpetrator and their families and friends as much as possible.

Now, excluding the BILD (and its related tabloids), this largely works out.

[–]DerLoladin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Bild and BZ are such ridiculous shit-pieces. It's actually insane to think how simple minded some people are. No one gives a damn if the Zeit (for example) would write "Peter B. Arrested for sexual harassment of minors." While the Bild would write "Dis man raped BABIIIIIIES1!1!" And low and behold, everyones freaks the fuck out.

[–]critfist 29ポイント30ポイント  (5子コメント)

This law would be unconstitutional.

Not really, American freedom of speech isn't absolute.

[–]Evilsqirrel 17ポイント18ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is true, but restricting freedom of the press in this case is definitely grounds to get such a law repealed. Instead, we simply need to withhold the names and other personal information of anyone involved in a criminal act until they are tried in a court of law, and possibly even a bit after the fact.

[–]Shrub74 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

So it needs to be a social thing rather than a legal thing?

[–]Scout1Treia [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Instead, we simply need to withhold the names and other personal information of anyone involved in a criminal act until they are tried in a court of law, and possibly even a bit after the fact.

But that does not change its constitutional grounding. At all.

[–]mykarmadoesntmatter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You're saying the Bill of Rights isn't absolute. Wtf explain

[–]scarletice 20ポイント21ポイント  (18子コメント)

Yeah,as great of an idea as it sounds, it's a real slippery slope.

[–]zeCrazyEye 20ポイント21ポイント  (1子コメント)

But slippery slope arguments are usually actually considered fallacious, they just sound good.

You can slippery slope anything and it never stands up to actual reason. Setting the speed limit to 60 is a slippery slope to setting it to 0.

[–]creepystains [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Exactly! I keep telling people we need to turn the handicap ramps into water slides, but nooooo. "It's a slippery slope" they say.

[–]Onylra 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

as great of an idea as it sounds, it's a real slippery slope

Actually, it's an 'appeal to authority'. Wink.

[–]Smith7929 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

The idea put forth by MacDonald was an appeal to authority? How so?

Edit: Unless this was a joke I am too obtuse for

[–]Onylra 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Surely you're aware of the supposed relevance to the recent spate of spree shootings? And the premise such murderers should not be publicized?

Take a look around the thread, and tell me it isn't so.

If OP posted it purely as a historical curiosity - great, but if you're trying to use it as a premise in a contemporary argument, then you have an appeal to authority (a particularly wack one, since the essay is kind of fucken kooky).

(edit) and 'false equivalence' bonus-round.

[–]Smith7929 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Ah okay. I just confused the subject of your post. Still, I think saying it is an argument from authority is tenuous, given that the actual link is to a paper where MacDonald gives supporting evidence to his words. It's not an argument from authority simply to quote an expert, it has to be without all the goodies that go along with it, like supporting evidence and soundness. And after a brief scan of that paper I would say he presents and interesting case for it.

[–]Onylra [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Still, I think saying it is an argument from authority is tenuous

Well, it's kind of a shot at everyone (hence the wink) - citing the constitution or law is also an appeal to authority. 'It is, because it is written down somewhere', is a dogmatic view. Not saying it's wrong, but saying this entire argument is shithouse. Wink!

[–]MaggotMinded1 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

/u/scarletice is referring to the criminologist's statement itself, not OP's implicit suggestion that we should care simply because it was said by a criminologist.

[–]creepystains [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Kind of strange that he picked a criminologist from over a hundred years ago to make a point.

[–]Onylra [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Another way to interpret this argument, is that OP is suggesting the adoption of such a law, now, and our grandparent post is arguing against that.

If we accept that the OP is addressing contemporary events, why should we assume GP is not arguing along the same lines?

(edit) rhetorically, countering a fallacy with like is strong - 'sir, even in your invalidity your argument still fails'

[–]kurburux 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yet journalists follow ethic rules which tell them not to report too elaborate and detailed about suicides. Reporters don't want to incite copycat suicides or Werther effect.

It could be possible that they agree on something similar on this topic.

[–]secavi 12ポイント13ポイント  (18子コメント)

We do not have complete freedom of speech. It's illegal to shout fire in a movie theater to incite panic, for example.

[–]BlueSky659 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

There are of course Time, Place, and Manner restrictions (TPM) on such things.

It has everything to do with context. These restrictions are in place for good reason. They help circumvent certain issues and attempt to keep things orderly. For example, it's wonderful that we're allowed to protest against our government and speak our minds about it in front of a government building or in the street, but it's not very practical if it is disturbing the general public.

Tl;dr: you have the right to exercise your rights, just don't be a prick about it.

[–]tallerthanunicorngod 22ポイント23ポイント  (9子コメント)

The bar for speech to lose protected status is very high.

Outlawing people's names doesn't even come close to meeting that bar.

[–]josefx 25ポイント26ポイント  (2子コメント)

Outlawing people's names doesn't even come close to meeting that bar.

Shouting "fire" by itself does not either. Context matters.

[–]Dr_Taliban_Me_Banana [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Would it be illegal to find out who shouted fire?

[–]josefx [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Do news agencies publish high scores of people shouting fire, listing individual achievements? Are there any observations showing a strong correlation between the resulting notoriety of the offenders and deaths caused by people trying to obtain the same notoriety?

In other words: Does publishing the names of those who shouted fire cause easily avoidable deaths?

Also its not "finding out" that should be outlawed. It is spreading their names as if they where some kind of star, as if they achieved something special that should be outlawed. A fine and in my opinion important distinction.

[–]Shaysdays 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

We do it for minors and rape victims.

[–]EvilNalu [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think you will find if you research this issue that in the US there are police policies against releasing this info in the first place and newsroom policies about publishing this info but no laws prohibiting publishing this info if it is lawfully obtained by the media. See, for instance, Smith v. Daily Mail.

[–]avenues_behind 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

If it infringes on a person's right to privacy, it wouldn't be hard to defend before SCOTUS. You'd probably only get specific provisions that are heavily context dependant passed them, though.

[–]penumbrage- [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's why it shouldn't be a law, merely a voluntary, common sense convention of responsible reporting. If they can refrain from showing dismembered bodies or quoting bigots verbatim simply to avoid offending people, isn't it a no-brainer to actually save lives by substituting 'deranged gunman' or 'insane killer' when it removes the stated motivations of many of these lunatics?

[–]Okichah 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Theres a difference in "freedom of expression" and "do whatever the fuck i want all the time". When you shout fire, you are inciting a riot. That action has consequences and is different from your right to express an opinion about fire safety.

[–]FryingPansexual 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

When you shout fire, you are inciting a riot.

Really more of a stampede than a riot.

[–]secavi [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

MacDonald's logic is that saying the name of the assassin publicly will have consequences, at least in some sense, similar to that of shouting fire in a theater.

[–]Dr_Taliban_Me_Banana [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Is it illegal to find out who shouted fire in a movie theater?

[–]secavi [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No; but the logic of this criminologist is that by disallowing saying the assassin's name publicly, it will help prevent at least some future crimes like the one committed.

[–]knock_blocks 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unfortunately this right is abused by the media.

[–]YourPassportNumber 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What if that speech is "hey guys lets tear down congress and convince everyone that we should never reform it again"?

[–]Speech500 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In most countries, if a new law conflicts with existing law, they change the existing law to fit. Why doesn't America just do that?

[–]Rocket_hamster [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

In Canada we have a notwithstanding clause. Does your constitution not have one of those?

Or a section that will allow an infringement if it is reasonable?

[–]breakerchoob [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sticking to rules for the sake of sticking to them is going to kill us all.

[–]GoodMerlinpeen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is usually the example given in these discussions.

[–]AKC-Colourization [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's the first amendment. Why don't we make make another that protects people?

[–]BobbyCock [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

lmao, you mean to tell me the PATRIOT Act is constitutional? The US government spying on all its citizens, the NSA?

The constitution hasn't stopped anybody, and that's what's wrong with the US. An incredible strong foundation, one that the US has drifted from as far as possible.

[–]Aaaaaaaaaaaagh [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Do you think that it's wrong to censor someone, for example, yelling "I've got a gun!" in a bank? Could the government prohibit that?

[–]Rybis [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This is the First Amendment

is the First Amendment

the First Amendment

First Amendment

Amendment

Sounds to me like it could be changed.

[–]ghoti_styx1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If you really disagree with the foundations of the nation to the extent you would want to repeal any of the bill of rights, you should probably just leave.

[–]silverballer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It shouldn't even have to be a law. People should just not do it. We should celebrate the lives of victims and cherish the heroes, not discuss the motives of the assholes who committed the crime. It's exactly what they'd want. Their names need to fade from existence, just like they did.

[–]BeenWaitingForSoLong [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Constantly being shoved down our throats

[–]vi_warshawski [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

wow some of the reddit retards seem to have gone from hey news people don't keep mentioning his name all the way to hey why don't we make it a crime to mention his name?

go jump in a gopher hole. i should find a link to the nasty old shooter's suicide manifesto to post along with his name. which was chris harper mercer.

[–]BoomMichaelScoon 30ポイント31ポイント  (16子コメント)

This might have been the part of the motive behind the events back then, but I honestly think that's not the case so much anymore. I can't say for sure, and I'm sure for some its notoriety or attention that they're seeking.

But with these recent school shootings it seems more like mental illness and frustrations with society are the reasons for these actions. Some individuals feel like outcasts and are possibly jealous/frustrated with seemingly "normal" people living their lives happily and without worry. Many of these cases have shooters that were a little out of touch and not part of larger social groups. I really don't think they do it to become famous.

[–]dscol715 37ポイント38ポイント  (2子コメント)

The following study claims mass shootings that get media coverage are contagious

http://www.newsweek.com/media-reporters-cover-mass-killings-umpqua-shooting-378866

I also recall listening to a freakonomics podcast on suicides that discusses a suicide epidemic that was believed to be exaggerated by media coverage of the suicides.

[–]Gars0n [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Wait was the epidemic exaggerated by the media or was it exacerbated? Exacerbated seems like it would fit better with the rest of your comment, but it is also fairly believable that the media would exaggerate that kind of story.

[–]Fujiou 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

"It seems like mental illness and frustrations with society"

And of course it is, but mental illness is really only a definitional claim. When you say that someone is mentally ill, all that really means is they meet criteria that we've decided makes them fit to be consider mentally ill. One of these criteria could very easily be "murderous intent." Of course there are underlying problems that lead to the development of these issues in the first place. But mental illness and school shootings don't have to necessarily directly correlate.

Mental illness and frustrations are one thing of course. The "outsider" feeling that these individuals experience is the catalyst for acting out of some sort, but it can manifest itself in very different ways. Shooting a bunch of people and receiving notoriety for it is HUGELY appealing to people who see themselves as outcasts of an unjust society. This allows them to become a martyr of sorts for anyone who feels the same way, and they find comfort and validation in knowing that there are others who would look up to them for committing such acts.

This is of course, all within the realm of mental illness, but simply calling it ill or disordered doesn't begin to address a solution. Even the actions of the mentally ill follow some sort of logic, and while it may stem from jealousy/frustration/mental illness, the way that they respond to these negative stimuli is something not too much different from the way humans tend to rationalize things, albeit in a more exaggerated way.

[–]oxfordattic [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

On the surface i would say, wanting to shoot a bunch of innocent people (or perceiving them as not innocent) is in itself a mental illness regardless of motive. Normal well adjusted people don't want to do this.

[–]Fujiou [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Exactly. People use mental illness to try to explain things like why shootings happen, but it's a tautology. It's like saying, "these people act in disordered ways because they're disordered people."

[–]oxfordattic [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yep, i notice there is a general lack of awareness by people in positions to talk publicly about where their arguments actually lead. The brain is a complicated thing there are always varying causes.

I guess it comes down to, what actions can we take to have fewer mass shootings? Rather than, how do we fix these people.

[–]RavensBrew [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What percentage of killers care about this? I know the one in Roseburg mentioned it, but it seems many have other issues.

[–]Japete81 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If no one is allowed to discuss or show pictures of the assassins then what name or picture will people use to parade around and push their own agendas?

[–]Eskapismus 12ポイント13ポイント  (17子コメント)

My dad is a Psychiatrist. Every now and then when some shooting or or incident happened, TV stations would ask him to "Profile" the perpetrator. As my dad didn't want to support the guy's 15 minutes of fame, the profile he gave was usually something like this: complete loser, never achieved anything and he's most probably still wetting his bed.

If the media would start portraying school shooters as pathetic bet wetters I'm sure there soon would be an end to school shootings.

[–]DaggerChelsea [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

that's assuming future serial killers knew your dad was lying. They might think "Ha! I'll be the best serial killer ever because every single one before me was a bed wetting loser!"

[–]Eskapismus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But he'd still be a loser since he's competing with even bigger losers.

[–]laconic5 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

And give them derogatory nicknames such as Bedwetter Manson or Fartonator Bundy or Microdick Steve.

[–]TakeTheShotStaaaan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"Did you see the shooters dick?"

"Yea it was crazy small"

"I wonder why they put that on the news"

Cut to shooter in jail, being ripped on by everyone

[–]narky1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

We had a very sucessful ad campaign here in Australia where girls witnessing guys speeding or driving recklessly would raise their little pinkies to show they thought he had a little dick.

Worked brilliantly. I think the exact same thing should be done in the US every time young boys go on a rampage. It'd certainly have an impact.

[–]ricktater69 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

So shaming the mentally ill and causing more pain and suffering to his/her family is better than keeping the shooters name private?

[–]plasticsheeting [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Not every shooter is mentally ill

Not everyone who is mentally ill is violent and drawn to mass killings.

That being said try not to use the terms like synonyms.

[–]ricktater69 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Ok, I get that, kind of. I'll change my question. So shaming the shooter and causing more pain and suffering to his/her family is better than keeping the shooters name private?

[–]RuineDSC [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

no, shaming the shooter is better than giving the shooter what he may consider positive attention - eg a more respectable psychiatric profile

[–]NotAsSmartAsYou [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Interesting!

Reminds me of the guideline used by writers who are quietly satirizing a real-life person. They always add an embarrassing trait, such as "very small penis", so that the real-life person will be unwilling to claim that he is the object of the satire.

[–]narky1 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule

The small penis rule was referenced in a 2006 dispute between Michael Crowley and Michael Crichton. Crowley alleged that after he wrote an unflattering review of Crichton's novel State of Fear, Crichton libeled him by including a character named "Mick Crowley" in the novel Next. In the novel, Mick Crowley is a child rapist, described as being a Washington-based journalist and Yale graduate with a small penis

[–]kitehkiteh [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Adam Lanza - Autistic

Seung-Hui Cho - Autistic/selective mute

Christopher Harper Mercer - Autistic

I'm not sure that autistic young men would care what the media have to say.

[–]conradsymes [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

You are responding to a second-hand account of a psychiatrist's opinion with your own expertise. Seriously try thinking about this.

[–]kitehkiteh [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

As an armchair psychoanalyst, my ability to dissect second-hand opinions is impeccable. I'm a top notch reddit analyst.

[–]I0xD [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That would certainly hurt their feelings! Your dad sounds fucking retarded btw.

[–]HaloFarts [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

ITT: Fucking Idiots

[–]TheShmud [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, you're not wrong. But I'd like to assume there's some logical discussion going on somewhere.

I just haven't seen it yet

[–]Traches [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I loathe the "turn off the TV, don't click articles, cover your ears" recommendation as a solution to the glorification of mass killers.

Ignorance is always a bad thing. Willful ignorance has allowed the greatest evils humanity has committed. The solution to this problem is more accurate, impartial information, not less.

Don't fucking tell me to close my eyes and ignore important facts about important events. Go gargle a bag of gangrenous cocks.

[–]eriwinsto 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

On the Media nailed this, as usual. http://www.onthemedia.org/story/podcast-extra-difficult-facts-about-gun-violence/

One unconventional option presented is to, if absolutely necessary to name the individual, present the killer's name with a picture of him on the autopsy table. Grim, but striking.

Host Bob Garfield presents to his guest that reporters' jobs are defined by five questions, the first of which is "Who?" His guest, the leader of the group NoNotoriety, responds with the argument that when the "who" affects the "why," we have a problem.

Essentially, we must rely on the journalists of organizations we trust to abide by reasonable ethical guidelines.

Of course you have to provide pictures and the name of they're still at large.

Also, isn't Reddit supposed to be pro-free speech? Is this article suggesting that that was a good idea?

[–]Kanyes_PhD [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I don't see anything wrong with society scrutinizing speech, it's when the government forces it. Plus why would we support news castors making these shooters into glorified villains posting body counts in headlines like a scoreboard.

[–]TheShmud 6ポイント7ポイント  (28子コメント)

1st amendment.

Edit: oh boy. Isn't it nice how everyone can argue about this freely though? Right guys? right?

[–]RudegarWithFunnyHat 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

third strike and you get the chair!

forth and you get the coffee table and the lamp!

[–]LittlekidLoverMScott 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

1) Really, we're still doing this

2) The world (and criminology) totally hasn't changed at all in over 100 years

3) Saying Beetlejuice 3 times should be a misdemeanor

[–]DaggerChelsea [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Isn't it also somewhat of a deterrent though? I would think the notoriety they would get afterwards has prevented a lot of mass shootings.

[–]49999999999999999994 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

but of course in the land of the free and home of the burgers, you will get your name on national tv if you go kill some people

[–]itshonestwork [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Would never work. One paper/show would take the hit of the misdemeanor to be the exclusive on name dropping the killer. Everything in American culture is about making profit at any cost. There's no way you could avoid it.

[–]RobotJiz [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If corporations are people, why can't we start to execute them? I realize you can't shoot CNN but after breaking the law 3 times, divide up the assets amongst the employee's (not managment) take away their business license. Strike 1=monetary fine, strike two=company has to buy back stock if its public and become private0, strike 3 kill the business license and divide up the company amongst the employees. AND NO DEALS ABOUT NOT ADMITTING GUILT. You either are or are not. No pleas anymore

[–]gaffney2010 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

News outlets should censor themselves, because it's the right thing to do. Consumers should demand it.

[–]tdietz20 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This is such a great idea but would be utterly destroyed before it started in the name of the 1st Amendment.

[–]yapity [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

we should do this for shooters too.

[–]Ginny_Frenulum [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, reddit is super into this idea, huh?

[–]zvcrvg [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The thought of people agreeing with this idea makes me nauseous. I hate what reddit has become.

[–]missinguser 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Supposedly we Cant name hitler in polite speech today due to Godwins law

That is crap. History cannot be studied if we keep censoring ourselves. Inability to name the crap of history means no history of wars. Our history books get pretty damn thin.

[–]MochaPancake 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's simple. Speak with your advertising dollars. If you see/hear something you disagree with. Tune out. All you have to do is turn off your TV.

[–]istillfeelyou -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

There's a video kicking about of a guy ranting at a news station live on air after that nutter shot up the school in Germany saying exactly this.

[–]Red_Dog1880 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Charlie Brooker.

I'm just surprised it hasn't been posted here, it normally always pops up in threads about mass shootings.

[–]creepystains [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not a very interesting TIL. A criminologist I've never heard of suggested an idea we've heard before.

[–]C-de-Vils_Advocate -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is a great idea because it makes society safer even though we lose some freedom.