General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNRATV advocates for regulating the 1st Amendment
Yes, you read that correctly. The NRA is publicly calling for laws to prevent the press being able to report on school shootings.
"It's time to put an end to this glorification of carnage in pursuit of ratings because it's killing our kids. It's time for Congress to step up and pass legislation putting common sense limitations on #MSM's ability to report on these school shootings." @MrColionNoir #MSMsense
Link to tweet
?s=21
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,389 posts)Initech
(100,060 posts)They are trying, and failing, to make a satiric analogy.
Initech
(100,060 posts)Satire is one thing they fail at, among other things.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The larger point, though, is that there are a lot of restrictions on "speech" broadly, some of which I've listed below.
Satiric comment is always going to be missed by someone.
There is a thing that happens in some state legislators fairly regularly where one group will introduce an onerous parental consent restriction on abortion, and some other group will introduce a proposal to require parental consent for minors to become pregnant.
Typically, the second bill will get media attention, and there will be a class of people going "WTF?"
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The tweet is a rhetorical device.
Proposing "common sense regulations" of speech is their way of satiric comment on "common sense regulations" of guns.
What they fail to realize is that there are a lot of regulations on speech:
Commercial speech has many restrictions: False advertising, trademark/copyright infringement, etc.
Other types of speech restrictions are: False reporting of crimes, criminal threats, forgery, fraud, solicitation of prostitution, blackmail... the list goes on and on.
There are, in fact, many crimes in which the primary act is speech or written communication of some kind which has been defined as an illegal form of speech.
angrychair
(8,691 posts)Based on the reaction of their followers tweets and no follow up, the post is being taken as seriously advocating for controlling the media reporting of school shootings. Such a position is not out of character or out of line with their existing position and statements. Therefore any reasonable person is obligated to take it at face value.
Given there was another school shooting this morning, I find even a satirical post like this in incredibly poor taste.
FWIW I agree, even speech has its limitations.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Call up a school and start saying "bang! bang! bang!" and see how that works out.
Gothmog
(145,102 posts)Caliman73
(11,728 posts)The media does exacerbate the problem with continuous coverage and advertisement of these situations. The typically desperate and isolated White men that tend to carry out the mass shootings are often trying to make some kind of statement or impact that is carried by the media in search of ratings. The next troubled person who sees the "fame" achieved is likely influenced by the coverage.
That said, Media is regulated. You cannot say certain swear words, you cannot show nudity, they often do not show excessive amounts of gory detail (which they maybe should be able to in order to actually show the reality of a shooting), so even their satire falls flat. There are regulations on the Media and speech. There should also be examinations of regulations on access to firearms to make it more difficult for people to get them to commit those acts.
This is a problem with a lot of moving parts. from culture, to mental health, to media, to the ease with which people can get guns. All have to be up for discussion and the ideas that work best at reducing risk should be implemented.
MurrayDelph
(5,293 posts)After all, the Second Amendment is the most-important one. That's why they made it second.