Hosting may be done for righteous motivations exactly, if the video is being censored away. There are few good reasons to want to review a crime scene, and man

Hosting may be done for righteous motivations exactly, if the video is being censored away. There are few good reasons to want to review a crime scene, and many good reasons against watching. There may be no direct reason to watch the video of the crime, and only the indirect chance that it might be important. There may also be perverse incentives or at least a morbid curiosity. Stipulating any of that would be unjust, though. The saving grace would be that clicking on a link is anyone's own responsibility, or the parents in case of child protection. Especially a security researcher and privacy advocate would highlight that fact. The real problem may not be the sensitive feelings but primarily advertisement, an expression of affirmation. Just what does merely hosting a video express? Legally speaking, not formally but morally, the personality rights involved in the content stand against the matter of public interest. Claiming a matter of public interrest over this individually should be neigh impossible. It's rather confusing and contradictory to devalue others privacy, making a stand for privacy, and defending integrity of privacy. ...