Washington, DC — President Barack Obama held a press conference today to announce signing into law a bill that prevents U.S. media outlets from naming the shooting suspect in any of their news coverage. This comes just days after a gunman opened fire inside a classroom at a rural Oregon community college, killing nine people and injuring nine others before committing suicide after a shootout with police.

“Today I’m proud to announce the ‘Mass Shooting Bill’, which will prevent the media and it’s coverage from naming the suspect or perpetrator in horrible tragedies like the recent Oregon shooting. If it is some kind of sick fame these individuals desire then that fame is what will be denied,” Obama told reporters. “With the shooting in Oregon, it is important to remember the 9 innocent lives that were lost that day. We must think of heroes like Chris Mintz, who was shot seven times while saving lives and survived, all on his son’s sixth birthday. We must forget the killer.”

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who voted against the bill, told Fox News the new law is a clear violation of freedom of speech.

“This goes against the 1st Amendment and everything the founding fathers envisioned for this great country,” Paul said. “Working alongside with other members of Congress, I promise you that we will get this law repealed.”

After the Oregon shooting, media outlets such as NPR received criticism over articles that named the suspect.

Under the new law, media outlets will face fines of up to $100,000 for naming in print, online, or over the airwaves, the suspect in a mass shooting, which is categorized as the murder of four or more people with no cooling off period.

http://nbc.com.co/obama-passes-mass...r-allowed-to-name-mass-shooting-suspect/

If this is not a hoax, it will never survive a first amendment court challenge.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Well, if they can't use a tragedy to erode the second amendment...

Wouldn't want folks finding out the shooter was a registered democrat or a muslim.

It's apparently real.
Although I like the idea of not making these pukes famous, the press should refrain because it's the right thing to do.
No way anyone can think this is constitutional. Makes me sick he would even try.

you can't hide a killer with the internet in almost every house. This Muslim Black POS Thinks he is King

This is obviously not the National Broadcasting Corp. It's some wacky site owned by a Dr. Horner. I would be seriously surprised if Congress could actually act that fast.

It's not real. The link is to a b.s. site.

Not so sure this doesn't have legs


http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-police-decide-against-naming-mass-shooting-suspects-1443985970

If real, this is REALLY IGNORANT.

Yep.

.co is the country code for Columbia.

A search revealed a number of news sources saying that OBAMA passed it, not congress. I checked the senate and house roll call voting records and didn't see any such bill being voted on.

It's simple - he cannot make/pass a LAW like that.

Hoax site. nbc.com.co On other words, com.co (which is in Colombia)

Don't know... These mass shootings are falling into 2 categories.
1) Terrorism like Fort Hood or Boston Marathon
2) Fame seeking nutjobs

You can't yell FIRE in a theater because of the high likelihood of injury or death.

So how is promoting for days on a 24x7 news circus the names and motives and everything about these nutjobs not the same as yelling FIRE? It's proven that it's leading to copycats and killings.

I couldn't care less if it leads to lower ratings. Maybe we should try banning the publishing of the names on newspaper/radio/television, let it sunset in 5 years.

I can yell fire in a crowded theater....if it's true.

you guys are discussing something that didn't happen

Yep, hoax. Don't get all exercised.

On a related note, the word "gullible" has been removed from the dictionary.

Sycamore

IMHO, there is nothing wrong with naming the perps as long as the media also gives the UNVARNISHED truth and facts about why that crime was comitted, how and with exactly what - on the basis of solid info put together by knowledgeable unbiased investigators. Not theory, not assumptions, not someone's personal view of the matter.

OK, hold the name of the perp(s) until the full and correct story has been assembled - NOT by media types or politicians - but by trustworthy experts. Then - publish the entire thing, name(s) and all. Given the human misery to be suffered and dealt with during and afterward, the immediate naming of the perp(s) seems almost inconsequential. I know - the "curiosity" factor. That's for small minds.

Yup, got me for a minute.

Democrats don't blame the shooter; they blame the gun. Too bad they don't know a single shot from a semi auto so they can get a story right.

I wish the media would just STFU and not give schidtheads like this any type of air time whatsoever....so if they dont mention his name, not by a law, but by an understanding that attention whores get off on attention....maybe things could change.


pipe dream I know but hell its worth a shot.

I'm discussing something I wouldn't mind seeing. If the media won't step up and stop naming them, at some point I think it should be discussed.

If nothing else, it'd be fun to see the liberals freak out and try to justify how the mass murder deaths are less important than the media naming the individuals involved.

I think that pretty well sums it up

A lot more lives than those lost to a few crazies were lost securing our Constitutional freedoms. I'm not willing to give any of them up.

How could anyone look at such a source and not see the satire?

A lot of state laws exist that ban the naming of juvenile delinquents involved in court cases, and almost all media refuse to name sexual assault victims. Hopefully the media will follow Megan Kelly's lead and stop naming them on their own. Though I doubt CNN or MSNBC would, they need those bloody ratings because they are almost dead without them.

I doubt it would stand up in court, the loss of 100 lives or so a year out of 330 million residents isn't justification to infringe a Constitutional right.

Best Self-believed Fiction Winner! (again)

I think the excess coverage of these shooters does encourage others to copy cat them. I also think the liberal media is fine with this as they are using this to lobby for more gun control.

They really would do society a service by voluntarily limiting coverage of these low lifes but they won't do it since it interferes with their liberal agenda.

Dear Rand Paul:

If Republicans have majorities in the Senate ahd House of Representatives, how did this law get passed in the first place?