Presidential mis-deeds?

First of all, First Amendment guarantees a free press.

The public has the right to know about a shooting, who did it, and why that person did it.

Even if there wasn't the First Amendment to consider, what good are we doing sweeping information under the rug, information that might help identify potential shooters in the future, or at least give those who may have interacted with the shooter in the past some reason to step forward and identify the red flags that might have been missed.

Not only is it unconstitutional, but it's just plain dumb.

For most shooters, it's not about the "fame and the glory." It's about whatever sets them off in their own lives.

Pretending that these people never existed or even worse, that their actions never occurred, helps absolutely no one.

IMO.

Seriously?

keep the news of these under wraps.

Social media. People will post of FB, tweet, and whatever other things are out there, including places like DU.

And I'm pretty sure the mainstream news organizations would refuse to go along with that sort of censorship.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

And yes, many do want their "15 mins" of infamy as a reason I believe.

"Don't name the shooter
In January 2014, Dr Sherry Towers went to a meeting at Purdue University, Indiana. On the same day, elsewhere on campus, Cody Cousins shot dead Andrew Boldt, a fellow student.
After the killing, the meeting was cancelled. But Dr Towers - a statistician from Arizona State University - started thinking about shootings, and the relationship between them.
It was the third school shooting I heard about in a 10-day period," she says. "And that seemed - even for the US - an unusually large number."
Dr Towers and her team got to work, and found that school shootings and mass killings had an average "contagious period" of 13 days.
That is - when one school shooting or mass killing happens, another becomes more likely.
Dr Towers does not want the media to ignore mass killings. "People have a right to know," she says.
And, as a scientist, she cannot prove that withholding the killer's name will reduce contagion. "It would be impossible [to prove] - there has never been a case where the killer wasn't named."
But she thinks that focusing on victims - rather than "lurid" details of the killer - could make shootings less likely.
"When I talk publicly, or to the media, I don't name the perpetrator unless there is a specific reason why," she says.
Dr Towers' research has been used by Alerrt, a team at Texas State University that studies "active shooter response". They have a campaign called Don't Name Them.
"A lot of shooters - not all of them - are driven by this desire for notoriety," says Dr Pete Blair from Alerrt. "If we know that's one of the motivations, why are you giving them the reward?"
Dr Blair doesn't want a ban on naming shooters. But he thinks the media should focus on "heroes, the community, and - where appropriate - the victims".
Some US journalists - such as CNN's Anderson Cooper - and websites now choose not to name mass killers."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43118865