>That is your opinion.No, it's a fact, unless you can explain to...

>That is your opinion.
No, it's a fact, unless you can explain to me why people need to know.

>You are creating a false equivalence between Case 1 and Case 2.
There is no equivalence between case 1 and case 2, so how can it be false?


>If multiple journalists name a suspect, which one is responsible ? The first one ? All of them ?
Every journalist who reports the name is responsible for reporting the name.
If reporting the name is a crime, then all who report it are guilty of it. Obviously.

>There is no direct link between a journalist and any subsequent crime.
If a journalist releases a name, feeding the positive feedback loop for mass shooters, then yes, there is a link.

And, by the way, you acknowledge this by agreeing that seeing mass shooters publicised encourages mass shooters.

>If the gun was properly secured and not stolen, no crime.
If the journalist didn't release the name, no positive feedback loop.

You should be all for it, by your own logic.

And by the way, you have yet to justify why
> stolen gun used in crime
puts responsibility on the owner and
>stolen vehicle used in crime
does not

I mean by your own poor attempts to pretend we can't individualise responsibility on each journalist who reports a name, if a gun is stolen and then passed around by criminals - is the owner responsible for ALL the crimes?


>So, in your view, is #2A more important that #1A ?
How do you imagine this is my view?
I've explained my position before.

Releasing the name would practically speaking be incitement.

Is incitement protected speech?