Meaning you take the profit away from the media companies, these stories get the coverage they do because it keeps eyes on the screen, more profit for the media companies, if cause-and-effect correlation can be made and they start getting the shit sued out of them they will stop making a these stories into a big deal.
And it wouldn't have been done by increasing Government regulation.
Yes I believe there are quite a few regulations written about a hundred years ago to "protect" people from seeing things the Government thought might be disturbing to some.
Remember the stink about the Superbowl "wardrobe malfunction" a few years ago?
People saw a tit, oh horrors!
Regulations right out of the Victorian Era.
I prefer using my right to change the channel if I don't like something to the concept of having the Government say what stories can and can't be run, that's a very slippery slope.
Why does it have to be either/or? I think we need to protect ALL rights guaranteed by the Constitution regardless.
With you there buddy.
This is what's going to happen, some new "feel good" legislation will be forced through that will only further restrict our rights in some way but will do fuck-all to prevent these tragedies from ever happening again, face it the people in Government don't want to solve things they only want to increase their power and further their own agendas.
This kind of thing is tailor-made for them.
And the next time it happens the cry will come from those same people in Government that MORE regulation is needed.
Rinse and Repeat.