211–220 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve always understood the problem with those videos is that they are sold by producers or distributors and therefore finance those horrible acts.
“Oh but your honor, I wasn’t selling the child pornographry, I was just collecting it!” There’s a reason that isn’t a defense, and I hope you already understand why that is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Oh but your honor, I wasn’t selling the child pornographry, I was just collecting it!” There’s a reason that isn’t a defense, and I hope you already understand why that is.
You handwave, but: 1) That probably is a valid defense in some countries 2) It is completely reasonable to ask for an articulate link between a crime and some sort of victim, otherwise the crime shouldn't exist. "It is obvious" is only for crimes with a very obvious victim. For child pornography, I assume the link is because people might be selling it for cash which is harder to trace and collecting it might be suppo…
2.) Your opinion is at odds with the laws of virtually every country on Earth. Countries that can’t agree on things as simple as diet, or whether gay people should be allowed to live still manage to agree on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GoPro sells an official mount for mounting a camera on a rifle Is this something GoPro should be ashamed of? 99.99999% of gun owners aren't criminals.
You're off by about 3 orders of magnitude.
They are far from being criminal by law
I think censorship is not going to fix the issue, people have the right to see and face evil if they so wish to and have a strong heart. I am from NZ and a muslim and have watched the video myself an hour after the incident, I know people personally affected by this and I think we all need to come together as human beings and understand that there are some evil ideas and people everywhere around the world. And that's…
>> I think censorship is not going to fix the issue, people have the right to see and face evil if they so wish to and have a strong heart. It's the inadvertent exposure that's more of a problem. The access is just so easy. If you were browsing at the time it was happening, you almost couldn't not watch the video because it was so prevelant. I'm imagining a 16 year old coming across it, and wondering how they process…
As for the 16 year old, it wasn't long ago that by 16 you'd have seen a few of your siblings and friends succumbed to illness or accident.
Death used to be part of life and we dealt with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What could be classified as hate speech more than a self videoed murderous rampage? Why the fuck should that be given a platform? Go search the dank corners of the internet for that shit if your "strong heart" desires it. What sick mind desires to give this piece of shit a bigger soap box?
I think if I was one of the people murdered, I would want others to see what kind of terror I went through. A video triggers emotions in people that they don't experience when they just hear about another unfortunate statistic. Maybe that would inspire more people to put effort into preventing these situations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What if any of the victims in the video didn’t want the video to be disseminated? Who are you to stand in the way of their wishes and rights? What standing do they have to prevent distribution of the video?
A moral standing grounded in mutual respect we’d hope to receive ourselves? Or if you really want to be legalistic, their next of kin have the standing.
That's not what standing means[1]. At least in the US, if the video was recorded legally[2], there's nothing you can really to do prevent publication of it. The laws are stricter if you're using it for commercial purposes, but it's not the case here.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
[2] You could argue that the shooting was illegal, so therefore the recording was also illegal, but that's a stretch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A moral standing grounded in mutual respect we’d hope to receive ourselves? Or if you really want to be legalistic, their next of kin have the standing.
>their next of kin have the standing. That's not what standing means[1]. At least in the US, if the video was recorded legally[2], there's nothing you can really to do prevent publication of it. The laws are stricter if you're using it for commercial purposes, but it's not the case here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) [2] You could argue that the shooting was illegal, so therefore the recording was…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So are you advocating these be taken down? Or you think that if the rule isn't applied equally everywhere then it shouldn't be applied at all? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. I think its pretty fucked up to think that shoving this guys murder vid into peoples faces is somehow for the greater good.
I don't see these two pieces of footage as functional different. They are documentation of terrorist attacks. If one is allowed, then yes, all should be.
It does document the attacks, that much is true. And in that regard it is the same as footage of 9/11 – but beyond that there is a distinction here.
Don’t be confused by simplification. Do take into account context, intent and author.
(That said, I do think that you can question whether it was wise to play video of the planes flying into WTC basically on repeat during those days.)
I think censorship is not going to fix the issue, people have the right to see and face evil if they so wish to and have a strong heart. I am from NZ and a muslim and have watched the video myself an hour after the incident, I know people personally affected by this and I think we all need to come together as human beings and understand that there are some evil ideas and people everywhere around the world. And that's…
>> I think censorship is not going to fix the issue, people have the right to see and face evil if they so wish to and have a strong heart. It's the inadvertent exposure that's more of a problem. The access is just so easy. If you were browsing at the time it was happening, you almost couldn't not watch the video because it was so prevelant. I'm imagining a 16 year old coming across it, and wondering how they process…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Acquiring child porn doesn't have to be any more difficult than acquiring videos of beheadings and other vile acts. It was only made difficult to acquire out of puritanism, there's nothing intrinsic about it that suggests you have to commit further crimes to find it. And if the idea is that the public is too dumb and easy to influence and therefore cannot be shown child porn or killings in New Zeland etc then it does…
And yet CP aficionados often seem to end up producing their own because it becomes an object of trade on certain black markets. Here's an example from just a month ago: http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/porn-actress-director-a... How is it that people who become interested in and start to collect CP would ever become involved in its production, in your model? Having gained access to a product they desire, those pe…