I am guessing this is why people like you get so confused so easily. I am not advocating nor insinuating in any way be it directly or round-a-bout that anyone keep anyone else from any information. Furthermore this is a direct example of why people don't get along with you.
You very clearly said the information should only be available through and FOIA request. If the information is only available through an FOIA request as per your directive, then the information is controlled by the government. That means that you are advocating for government control of the information. There is no other way around it.
How many crimes are committed where the criminals information is never even mentioned? The ones that get mentioned are the ones that fit a narrative so they can bring in viewers or are interesting enough to bring in viewers.
This statement has no relevance. The thing about free information is that people can choose to disseminate what they want and what they don’t want to. I can tell you the color of my car if I feel like it, or I can choose not to tell you. And infotainment Nettwerk can tell you who the shooter is, or choose not to; if they have the information it’s their freedom of choice what to do with it.
Our media is not state-sponsored or run.
On to your dumb example of the roofing book. A roofing book would have information that will help with the construction of a roof. I am NOT a roofer so I don't NEED the book. So using your ******** example, tell all of us how you or Jimi77 knowing a shooters sexual identity gives you information that will help you do anything.
You call it a dumb example, then you illustrate why it’s a good example.
You’re not a roofer, so you don’t NEED to read a book about it. It you CHOOSE to, you think you should have to file an FOIA request to be able to see it.
How do you feel about public jail rosters or warrant lists? Should they exist, and if they should, what information to you deem acceptable for the lists?
Now, Rob, I will dumb it down. Here is a STATEMENT: I do not think it is necessary or necessarily safe for NEWS MEDIA to give out an alleged criminal or suspects information before a conviction is made. This information does nothing for the general public. It's like a mother bringing home groceries and the kids asking how she got the money to get the groceries. The information is available but it does the kids no good to know the information. They can't do anything with the information.
What does a conviction have to do with it? A conviction doesn’t change a person’s skin color, age, sexual orientation, political leanings, etc.
And your analogy of the kids and their mother’s income is not valid. People get to choose what they want to share about themselves. If she chooses not to give her kids that info, so be it.
But she doesn’t get to control what other people might say to her kids. A family acquaintance might tell the kids without knowing mom has a secret.
Welcome to societal living.
I could go on but you are already demonstrating that it is getting difficult to comprehend what I am saying without jumping to conclusions then running with what your mind makes up as reality or facts.
I comprehend you just fine. You made it clear multiple times that you think information should be kept under lock and key by the government unless said government deems we have the correct “need” to know such information, and that information outlets such as “news” networks should be prevented from sharing information unless the government sees a demonstrated “need” for that information to be released.
Its a concept well known in other places.
State-run media, heavily filtered and monitored internet, etc.
The people benefit from it greatly.