In the United States, I highly doubt this would hold up in court. Forcing media to not publish about mass casualty events is antithetical to the First Amendment protection of free speech and press
You realize the government fines people for cursing on television right? That it also limits access to pornography? There is plenty of room for doing similar things with shooters.
Legally those things are not similar at all. The government (FCC) can only fine broadcasters for cursing and pornography because RF broadcast spectrum is a limited public resource. The government generally has no legal authority to restrict content in other media delivered through other channels such as print, cable TV, and Internet. (There are some limited exceptions for obscenity and commercial content targeted toward children.) Any media restrictions would have to take the form of a voluntary code of conduct.
There are centuries worth of Supreme Court rulings on this topic. You should read them before making such suggestions.
I don't remember suggesting a law be passed. The government can do a lot without outright banning information, which I'm certainly against. As you point out, codes of conduct have formed without such, and a little pressure would probably go a long way to doing similar things here.
We don't need information to be unobtainable, just not plastered on every possible medium.
You mentioned "fines", which implies a law. Voluntary codes of conduct can't be enforced with fines.
I do agree that media organizations should be more responsible about not glorifying violence or publicizing the identities of violent criminals. A desire for notoriety seems to have been one of the motives in some mass shootings.
I mentioned fines that exist to refute the implication that the first amendment is all powerful and without government limit. The government limits all kinds of speech based on various tests (threats, yelling fire in a crowded room, art vs. pornography, etc.) that have been applied in the supreme court.
> If you want to argue for constitutional amendments, fine. Just ignoring it is not on the table.
Of course it is on the table. Just pass a media safety law, and if the Supreme Court dares to get in the way, pack it with supporters of the law. Or just ignore the court, too. Didn't it basically grant itself the power to veto laws?
