7 dead, 7 wounded in Santa Barbara shooting rampage

OK. Help me out then. What did you mean by, "it's about importance"?

 

Read my post again. The one quoted above. Read it carefully. Then do us all a favor and give yourself the smack in the head that you deserve. Thank you.

 

The son of a photographer with several second-unit and assistant director credits on his resume, Elliot Rodger appeared to have chosen what cinematographers call "magic hour" as the moment to shoot video, the setting sun coloring his face the electric orange of a C.S.I.: Miami episode. It's a tricky thing bringing fiction into play when discussing a real-life tragedy, but it's clear Rodger conceived his video, if not the murders that followed it, as a performance. He addresses his imagined audience directly, jabbing his finger at the lens for added emphasis, and peppers his speech with a convictionless maniacal laugh that could have been cribbed from Chris Cooper's character in The Muppets.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/elliot-rodger-ann-hornaday-seth-rogen-judd-apatow

 

Does my proposed law really limit the press though? Does it give government more power than is necessary?

The purpose pf a free press is to limit government power, right? Yet, the press agreed to the government's request to not print the CIA Station Chief's name. Did that make the press any less free?

Would not publishing this kids name, image, writings, or recordings, damage the power of the press? Would it threaten our liberties?

 

Because people are going to want, and need to know if these killers are just lone nut jobs or part of a wider reason why they happen.

Hypothetically speaking, say the media doesn't provide publicity to, let's say, four mass killings in a year. Wouldn't people want to know if they are frustrated virgins, terrorists or anti-government whack jobs?

 

Worse than airport security checks and warrantless "data mining," I'm guessing.

 

Actually, B_S holds all spots on the SportsJournalists.com Top 10 Bad Comparison list (he's got 49 of the top 50, as well). YF doesn't even make a comparison here.

To pull a page from your playbook, perhaps go back and read what he wrote. At that point, if you pass the quiz, your assignment will be to look up the word "comparison" in the dictionary.

 

That couldn't be done with my proposed restrictions in place?

What if you were allowed to characterize, but not publish the writings and recordings?

We've seen this, right?

Did any mainstream news organizations show Daniel Pearl's murder? We know what happened, but we didn't need to see it.

 

I can't believe I'm taking this argument seriously, but stop talking about "the press," because the way you view it has little to do with the First Amendment and what it means.

You'll also note the First Amendment contains no qualifiers, like the Second does.

 

Look, I just think it's odd that folks propose changes to law that would restrict a right that they have no interest in exercising, but resist all efforts to restrict their own rights, and then wonder why everyone isn't impressed by their proposals.

 

So, you're saying it would take a Constitutional Amendment to implement my changes?

OK. Do you support altering the Constitution to achieve these goals?

Or, maybe dead kids don't trump your desire to see the First Amendment unchanged.