>You are imposing a penalty to restrict freedom of the press to report news. They can report the news without restriction. The identity of the killer is irrelevant to this news.
I mean as it stands now, the press often does not report the race/ religion of criminals because they feel this may drive harmful stereotypes.
Do you disagree with the premise that mass shooters are partially motivated by the attention mass shooters receive?
And frankly, what would be an easier thing to try first.
1) Disarm millions of people 2) restrict a few journalists.
How about this. If restricting journalists doesn't work, we can consider other options. Fair?
>How does that align with your belief that the owner of a gun that is stolen to commit a crime shouldn't be fined ?
>It is entirely unreasonable to punish someone for the unrelated actions of another"
Case 1: Mass shooter commits crime. Journalist releases name which continues cycle of mass shooters. In this scenario, the mass shooter and the journalist both caused harms.
Case 2. Law abiding person owns firearm, it is then stolen and used in a crime. In this scenario, the firearm owner caused no harm; only the criminal has caused harm.
Seems like they align perfectly. Unless you believe owning a gun somehow harms other people, which you'll have to explain to me.
Cause people own plenty of things that can be used as weapons, and you really don't like it when they're brought into the discussion.