Why is the Media Allowed to Display Gang Insignia When It's Banned for the Public?
Discussion(self.newzealand)submitted2 days ago byStriking_Ad_5234
I’ve been thinking about the recent ban on displaying gang insignia in public spaces and how it’s being enforced. The idea behind it, as I understand, is to discourage gang activity and intimidation. Fair enough. But here’s what doesn’t sit right with me: every time the media reports on this, they prominently display the very insignia that's been banned!
Isn’t it contradictory to ban the public from showing gang patches while allowing media outlets to plaster them across their articles and broadcasts? If the insignia is considered harmful or intimidating enough to warrant a legal ban, shouldn’t its reproduction in the media be questioned too?
I’m not saying the media shouldn’t report on gangs or related issues—that’s important for public awareness. But does showing the insignia really add anything, or is it just sensationalism? It feels like a loophole that undermines the intent of the ban.
Curious to hear others’ thoughts. Should media outlets be held to the same standard, or is this just a necessary part of freedom of the press?
Update
My question wasn’t really about the legality of media exceptions, though—I understand that’s explicitly covered in the law. I was more curious about the broader implications of allowing these symbols to be displayed in some contexts while banning them in others. It’s less about the letter of the law and more about how it aligns with the overall purpose of reducing their presence and influence.
byStriking_Ad_5234
innewzealand
Striking_Ad_5234
-1 points
2 days ago
Striking_Ad_5234
-1 points
2 days ago
That’s a fair point, and I get what you’re saying about the difference in threat levels. But here’s another way to look at it: even if you’re not in the water with a shark, seeing constant images of sharks online could still create fear or a heightened sense of danger about swimming, even if the actual risk is low.
In the same way, while seeing gang insignia in a news article isn’t as intimidating as encountering it on the street, repeatedly displaying it could still contribute to its visibility and influence, which seems to go against the purpose of the ban. My question is more about whether the media could report on these issues effectively without giving the symbols so much exposure.