I think you replied to the wrong person (you're quoting stuff that I didn't write?), but I'll answer nonetheless;

No, sorry. I was making general responses I anticipated to clear things up.

[We, as individuals, could change how we handle the information.]That isn't a viable solution. We as individuals mean you and me. Everybody else is also individuals, but togheter they make that uniform barely-defined group called "the people". We have no reasonable way of changing how the people act or react to something. If we could rely on that, laws wouldn't be needed at all; "the people" could agree on not commiting crimes and be done with it. Look at it like this, if you're an alcoholic leaving rehab, the community is not going to close all the bars and liquor stores just for you. Depending on the community, ya, they actually do. My mom came from a relatively small town, the sort of everbody knows somebody who knows you kind of place. Over there, this sort of thing happened all the time; "sorry Joe, but your wife said no more than three beers" and stuff. Potentially dangerous suspects or those who have information regarding those individuals must be apprehended. I'm not denying that, but aprehending them, and making their aprehension a public display, are two different things. Besides, you were just earlier saying the problem is that we have a mentality of relying on the police too much, and now your solution is to aprehend individuals. Unless you mean we as individuals should aprehend them, I think the two ideas are in conflict. Information doesn't make people act. It does. Information has always made people act. Not a single post on facebook, or a single wall graffitti. But enough information over the course of time will change an individuals mentality, and with it the way he behaves. Hatred isn't born from nothing. Okay, maybe sometimes it is, sometimes you get a weirdo who thinks a little out of the box and he gets to the conclusion everybody but him must die. But a lot of personal hatred isn't born from nothing. It is born from living on an enviroment where that hatred already exists, and it's message is spread. It is the reason war propaganda is a thing, for example. Censorship (in the sense of removing or limiting information) is not and never has been a cure for stupidity. I disagree. If a teacher in a school teaches information that is batantly false (such as denying WW2 happened, for example), then the school removing him - effectivelly censoring what he says - will cut the root of many a possible student's stupidity. Limiting information that is actually misinformation (such as a faulty teacher, or the name of a suspect who, could turn out, is not the real culprit) can help society. condition the subject (the public) to manage the information appropriately (show restraint). Alright. I've got to ask; how are you going to condition the public into anything, if you believe information doesn't change the way people act, and you also believe censorship is never the solution? If you try and explain people your point of view, you're banking on the idea that your words (information) will influence their behavior (the way they act). You also won't be able to tell people what not to do (ergo, you can't tell them off for not using restraint), because that'd be censorship. So in the end your solution depends on you accepting that it's own reasoning is faulty (You believe that information will never cause people to change their ways, because people are inherently faulty, and thus the best answer is to use information to make people change their ways)