Originally Posted by
Lynarii
No, again you're bringing up a situation that has nothing to do with the one being discussed in order to try and claim that this unrelated thing is somehow proof of a problem. 9/11 was a breaking news report on TV being broadcast by professionals who were doing their job. It also was not broadcast with the intent of gaining a degree fame from a criminal act that the broadcasters were a party to. You also had no reasonable way of reporting said crime (and the authorities already knew at the same time you did).
How is it you can't tell the difference between that and logging onto a Facebook livestream in order to see someone be murdered? Where there is a reasonable expectation that the authorities do not know, and you do have reasonable options to alert them?
Like I mentioned in the edit of the previous post, there are already laws in many areas concerning failure to report some of the most serious crimes. None of them, not a single one, was ever used to attempt to charge a person for having seen the 9/11 broadcast, and any attempt to do so wouldn't even have gotten close enough to court to be thrown out of it. Because laws actually tend to be pretty specific in what they cover, most of them can't be stretched to fit scenarios that aren't what the law is about. A law concerning non-reporting of livestreams on the internet simply wouldn't apply to a TV broadcast because it'd be about internet livestreams and not TV broadcasts.