8 ms·

Beheading videos are illegal? Why? I believe they have journalistic value.

OutOfHere 2y ago
I don't think they're illegal, but journalism aside, they may at times be suggestive of a terroristic inclination. It will raise further red flags. They can however lie to you that the possession is illegal and detain you for it, even though it's legal as per the First Amendment, and no jury will find you guilty if you quote the First Amendment in your defense, except in the event of a Supreme Court precedent against such possession.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Some countries like NZ and Australia do ban content that is violence and censor it despite journalistic value. They recently tried to force X to ban footage of a stabbing globally for all users, and Musk said no luckily.
- seoulmetro 2y ago
  It's shocking how much censorship we have these days in the world. "For our safety", except it's not, it's for the reduction of freedom since freedom is noise and noise in 0.001% of cases can generate unsafety.
zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
[flagged]
- 000ooo000 2y ago
  Make someone a criminal for simply holding evidence of a crime. Genius. You were downvoted last time because it's still a shit idea.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
    Yes. Children are victims. They are re-victimized when the videos are shared. Perverts sharing them encourages more to be produced. Same thing with murder videos and animal torture videos.
    - vsnf 2y ago
      > They are re-victimized when the videos are shared > Same thing with murder videos Philosophically, can a dead person be re-victimized?
      - zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
        Families have become victims of harassment when weirdos have sent images to them of their dead family member. Most people would be offended if I pissed on their mother's grave. Let's say they can't be re-victimized and their families aren't new victims. There's still the argument that it encourages more killings. I believe that videos like the Christchurch massacre should be banned. That video was made by the murderer and I'm sure was intended to bring fear to that community and encourage more acts of violence by other murderous weirdos. A surveillance video or a video made by a victim or bystander is different. I don't think those videos should necessarily be shared, but if they're not made by the perpetrator or shared to try to bring support to the preparator, then yeah it's probably newsworthy. Still, the victims' families should be taken into consideration. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be scrolling through Twitter and come across a video of someone you know being murdered.
        defrost 2y ago
        > Families have become victims of harassment when weirdos have sent images to them of their dead family member. .. and people have been shot dead by guns. Many people feel that these are arguments for 'banning' (making illegel) harrassment and murder rather than videos and guns.
        zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
- drbaptis 2y ago
  Great, another excuse to arrest people who film or share videos of police violence. Also, a good excuse to erase evidence of war crimes.

I don't think they're illegal, but journalism aside, they may at times be suggestive of a terroristic inclination. It will raise further red flags. They can however lie to you that the possession is illegal and detain you for it, even though it's legal as per the First Amendment, and no jury will find you guilty if you quote the First Amendment in your defense, except in the event of a Supreme Court precedent against such possession.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Some countries like NZ and Australia do ban content that is violence and censor it despite journalistic value. They recently tried to force X to ban footage of a stabbing globally for all users, and Musk said no luckily.

seoulmetro 2y ago
It's shocking how much censorship we have these days in the world. "For our safety", except it's not, it's for the reduction of freedom since freedom is noise and noise in 0.001% of cases can generate unsafety.

zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago

[flagged]

000ooo000 2y ago
Make someone a criminal for simply holding evidence of a crime. Genius. You were downvoted last time because it's still a shit idea.
- zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
  Yes. Children are victims. They are re-victimized when the videos are shared. Perverts sharing them encourages more to be produced. Same thing with murder videos and animal torture videos.
  - vsnf 2y ago
    > They are re-victimized when the videos are shared > Same thing with murder videos Philosophically, can a dead person be re-victimized?
    - zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
      Families have become victims of harassment when weirdos have sent images to them of their dead family member. Most people would be offended if I pissed on their mother's grave. Let's say they can't be re-victimized and their families aren't new victims. There's still the argument that it encourages more killings. I believe that videos like the Christchurch massacre should be banned. That video was made by the murderer and I'm sure was intended to bring fear to that community and encourage more acts of violence by other murderous weirdos. A surveillance video or a video made by a victim or bystander is different. I don't think those videos should necessarily be shared, but if they're not made by the perpetrator or shared to try to bring support to the preparator, then yeah it's probably newsworthy. Still, the victims' families should be taken into consideration. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be scrolling through Twitter and come across a video of someone you know being murdered.
      - defrost 2y ago
        > Families have become victims of harassment when weirdos have sent images to them of their dead family member. .. and people have been shot dead by guns. Many people feel that these are arguments for 'banning' (making illegel) harrassment and murder rather than videos and guns.
        zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
drbaptis 2y ago
Great, another excuse to arrest people who film or share videos of police violence. Also, a good excuse to erase evidence of war crimes.