I’m not trying to hijack this thread. I’m trying to show you your own faulty logic. You suggest gutting the First Amendment can be done without it being illegal or unconstitutional. I’m merely illustrating that your logic would allow the same thing to happen to the Second Amendment, where, ya know, the whole gun issue resides.
And yes, you have some scientists who agree with you. But just because they’re scientists doesn’t mean that their opinions are gospel. I have a friend who’s a professor of astronomy at one of the Georgia Tech satellite campuses. He’s a smart motherfucker. But that doesn’t mean that his views on human trafficking or border security, or a million other things unrelated to astronomy are somehow more knowledgeable than someone else’s.
This thread has reached the point where it is an embarrassing pile-on of all the egregiously errant things DrDeth has argued. There ought to be a mercy rule on this board, when the score is: OP 0, literally everyone else a million.
Well, it’s not MY logic. Look Heller has specified and put reasonable limits on what gun controls can be put in place. Thus, your suggested limits would not be Constitutional. That’s why I said read Heller.
OTOH, the FCC certainly has reasonable legal control over broadcast media without 1st Ad issue. They have told them no tobacco ads, etc. This is perfectly Constitutional. Thus the scientists suggested limits would be Constitutional.
These scientists are specialists in sociology, criminology and Psychology. This is their field. But yes, a specialist outside their field is just a smart guy giving his opinion. It’s not worth much more than a posters here on this MB, if any.
It occurs to me that Canada has access to all the crazy media crap the Americans produce, including their news cable networks, and there are even numerous Canadians working in the U.S. to produce it, so it’s not some alien concept to us and doesn’t even require translation, so… should we be having more mass shootings?
Which neatly circles back to my question from earlier:
After all, if the rest of the developed world has similar access to and engagement with news and social media, doesn’t that imply that the rest of the developed world should have a similar rate of mass shootings?
You’ve found a few papers from soft-scientists. Big deal. It doesn’t mean that the soft science experts in any of the soft science fields are in agreement on this matter.
Frankly no one on this board but you thinks that media censorship is the solution.
Will you please make up your mind? You talk about this being done voluntarily half the time, and the government being about to control what the media says the other half. What exactly are you promoting in this thread?
You said it’s not censorship, but you’re wrong. It may be Constitutional, it may be legal, it may be the right thing to do, but it’s still censorship. Copyright violations, slander, libel, and plagiarism have no prior restraint, and are all civil offenses.
Are you saying as long as CNN is willing to pay a fine they can publish the names? Who would levy the fine and under what authority? They’re on cable so you can’t pull their license. What do you propose the government should do to them?