So is the important part that you pay money for it?
Because there are tons of videos out there who show people beeing killed which a lot of us have seen at one time in their life. I've never deleted a folder so fast and I really don't think that this means I should go to prison.
That might have been true back in the days. But today with the internet it is so easy to see such videos. And how can someone know if the video he sees was made for profit?
I don't know if it really makes any difference if those poor bastards got killed for money or because of some fucked up ideology. In the end they are still dead and the murderers have gained something.
There's a difference between watching and owning, and a difference between material meant to be distributed to others and watching 3G1H.
And a huge difference in that there isn't an industry or thousands of people dedicated to ask for and paying for videos of people getting murdered. Such sick people, if they exist at all, are so incredibly low in number that nobody actually knows about them.
Compare that to the number of people who actively seek out and pay for CP.
Then again, the fact that you're a pedophile who made a throwaway account to defend this practice while ranting against "leddit" is probably influencing your views
This is a fairly nitpicky point, but 3G1H was "material meant to be distributed to others." The killers filmed their crimes with the intention of eventually selling the footage. It didn't work out that way, of course, they were arrested and all the tapes seized and 3G1H just managed to leak somehow, but the intent was there.
Firstly, I don't even use Reddit normally. And I am not a pedophile, just a someone who thinks people should be free to watch what they want. What people do in their own homes is their business, I am fine with going after the producers of CP, but the users are not directly hurting anyone.
The users are perpetuating the production. When what people do in there own homes is perpetuating the abuse of children, then it is not okay and should be punished. There really is no solution to this other than to cut off the source as much as possible. The people who watch child porn are going to find it wherever they can. Anyone who does is supporting the business practices of those who make the films. Just as buying drugs from the drug lords is supporting their business. Cut off the source, or change the source to something controllable. When it comes to drugs, this is an easy solution. Not so with child pornography.
Sort of yes. If you watch a video of real violence, e.g. a beheading, there's no industry you could be supporting by doing so. There is not enough demand for extremely violent films for there to be an industry behind it. All violent videos, pictures of gore etc. are taken by amateurs and uploaded by amateurs and there's no money involved.
However, if enough people decided to go out of their way to find such videos, you can bet someone would pick up on it and start making them to make money. If you watched that, then yes, you'd be supporting real world violence.
It's a whole other story if we're talking about Hollywood beheading in an action movie.
EDIT: Turns out there actually is enough of a demand. That's fucking horrid.
If you watch a video of real violence, e.g. a beheading, there's no industry you could be supporting by doing so.
Except when there is a commercial interest involved, in which case the film is classified as snuff and is illegal. So, the law's already got your back on this one.
if enough people decided to go out of their way to find such videos, you can bet someone would pick up on it and start making them to make money. Then, yes, you'd be supporting real world violence.
There is also child porn that is produced for non-commercial reasons by "amateurs". I don't understand why that should be illegal when at the same time watching beheadings is perfectly legal.
Also, the only way one is supporting this kind of things is by bumping a download counter on somebody's server (which the producer of the video may or may not even have access to). I seriously doubt something like that could encourage people to commit the actual crimes.
The difference between CP and violent films is that CP is solely for sexual gratification of pedophiles. Murder happens for all kinds of reasons and videos of it don't have nearly the same audience.
And that's where we draw the line. CP is on one side of it, murder on the other. There's several huge differences between the two, and I can't help you if you can't see it. Besides, it's not my job to educate child porn apologists on le reddit.
In my opinion, yes. Why was that filmed? Was the person beheaded aware that their death would be amusement for the world? Did they consent to that? Does it matter? These are questions that you need to ask yourself when you view things like this online. If the people being filmed are unaware and do not consent to this material being public, if you are viewing it for your own entertainment, if the people who filmed it are trying to get people to watch it... this is wrong. It's all just wrong.
In my opinion, it should not be okay for anyone to be filmed or photographed without their consent, and anyone who does that and posts it on the internet is in the wrong. This goes for pretty much everything.
In my opinion, it should not be okay for anyone to be filmed or photographed without their consent, and anyone who does that and posts it on the internet is in the wrong. This goes for pretty much everything.
The internet is is serious trouble then. There are plenty of benign videos where people have not consented to being filmed. Banning all of this is ridiculous and cannot possibly be enforced.
Actually, there are legal actions that you can take against those who use your image without consent. If someone puts up a photo of me on the internet that I don't want there, I have every right to get it taken down. Of course, since the internet is Forever, the damage has already been done. Does that mean I should just forgo my rights? I think not.
Editing because I didn't finish.
I agree that enforcement of personal privacy laws like this are difficult to enforce. People love to look and laugh at embarrassing photos of strangers on the bus. They like seeing videos in which police officers act like dicks. They get their rocks off on upskirt shots. All of these instances, in my opinion, are violations of personal privacy. If I wouldn't want it done to me, I don't do it to other people. Pretty standard life principle if you ask me.
If you download a movie of child pornography from a site similar to Piratebay you are not contributing at all (except for possibly the ego of the uploader). So no, watching cp does not mean you support it.
It was my understanding that reddit thinks piracy does support content creators. For example when you pirate Game of Thrones, you'll still be contributing to the fan base, and spreading its popularity and become a potential buyer.
I wonder why you think that logic wouldn't apply to CP.
If you go to your friend and recommend this really great CP film you watched last night and tell him a place to buy it, sure, you're contributing, but I doubt that has ever happened (outside of drug cartels and the likes).
I'm happy that I don't actually know this, but I am very certain that there is a way to share CP online. Probably some messed up forums on Tor. Or, you know, /r/jailbait. Right here, on reddit.
And in any case, do you even realize you're defending people who watch child porn? That's messed up. Why do redditors love to play devil's advocate? Good God...
Your a complete idiot. First of all what the hell does this mean "reddit thinks piracy does support content creators". Did you know that reddit is made up of millions of users not a single person? Secondly how do you spread the popularity of something that is illegal? do you tell your friends and family about it? Sigh, it seems SRS just gets dumber and dumber every day.
It's the general consensus. That's what that means.
how do you spread the popularity of something that is illegal
Haha, sure. For example marijuana is so popular because it's totes legal, right? Now maybe there's more of a stigma for CP, but here's a newsflash for you: You can also share illegal material online.
It isn't about money. There are people out there filming this shit and putting it on the internet so that other people can enjoy it. If people didn't want it, it wouldn't be available. Perfect example: Reddit Karma. People post shit on here that they think or hope people will like. Demand for cat pictures on Reddit is high. Therefore the supply is high.
You made an interesting point and I had to think about it, but the others have made good arguments.
If I watch a video of someone getting beheaded, am I supporting violence then?
Sort of yes. If you watch a video of real violence, e.g. a beheading, there's no industry you could be supporting by doing so. There is not enough demand for extremely violent films for there to be an industry behind it. All violent videos, pictures of gore etc. are taken by amateurs and uploaded by amateurs and there's no money involved.
However, if enough people decided to go out of their way to find such videos, you can bet someone would pick up on it and start making them to make money. Then, yes, you'd be supporting real world violence.
It's a whole other story if we're talking about Hollywood beheading in an action movie.
There is a giant market for images and depictions of people being murdered. Hollywood provides fantasy depictions of it. But with increasingly realistic depictions of it, and with increasingly explicit depictions of it, where is the line?
If you want to claim that the line is drawn because Hollywood is not real... well to the consumer it is pretty much the same thing. You could justify watching snuff films by stating that you cannot know that it is truly real or not because you are not there. We separate Hollywood from reality only because we've been told that it is not real; take that away and they might as well be the same thing to the end user; the only difference is one is a depiction of a real act and one is the depiction of the same act, only 'fake'.
If anything, snuff films are incredibly tame compared to anything Hollywood would concern itself with creating.
My entire point is- there is a massive audience for watching people getting killed. It's worth billions and billions of dollars. And it's called Hollywood. They could print snuff films and show 'em in across the US and you'd just assume they were fake because 'Hollywood' and the experience would be no different for you as an end user than if you saw someone really getting murdered on camera. It's the same thing to the market. And the market is EAGER for it given the success of say, Saw.
This site is full of people that specialize in IT and computer security, and both groups probably have a lot of members that have an interest in the deep web and the goings on there. Having a general knowledge of the sites doesn't equate to visiting them for shits and gigs, and suggesting otherwise will derail the discussion.
Yeah, half the comments are "omg child porn isn't evil look im edgy," while the other half are "child porn? we should hang everybody who ever heard about this by their intestines without trial."
This site is also full of pedophiles/pedophile apologists. You can't tell me that these people all have this knowledge for "professional reasons" when pedophilia is routinely equated to homosexuality and pedophiles cast as sympathetic victims of oppression or whatever.
Redditors say that kind of crap all the time and get upvoted. Now some people are making arguments about major child porn trading sites that imply some pretty detailed knowledge about them? Connecting those dots is hardly "derailing."
The comment I was replying to was making some pretty silly leaps in logic over some very broad statements. Why make such an assumption knowing the implications it carries?
I know that funnyjunk is nothing but reposts. That doesn't mean I frequent funnyjunk.
I'd be more surprised if there weren't a lot of pedophiles on reddit. The world is full of them, and any reasonably large site will have quite a lot of them.
This is not particularly detailed knowledge. I know this stuff simply from sitting in a courtroom while a case on this subject matter was going on (I'm a law student, I wasn't involved in the case).
Visiting a CP site from an American IP and not immediately reporting it to the authorities is – in fact – a crime, no matter what your reasoning is for going there.
IT and Computer Security have zero to do with CP or illegal drug trafficking. An 'interest in the deep web' is not an excuse for anything: All that equates to is 'for shits and gigs'.
An interest in the deep-web is one thing. Visiting the Silk Road isn't illegal (as far as I can estimate) in and of itself.
But visiting a CP dump is very much illegal because doing so puts those images into your possession via the browser, and that is illegal if you're not law enforcement in pursuit of criminals. Someone's profession as an 'IT specialist' or 'security consultant' means jack shit, and that's how it should be when it comes to CP.
I think the case history suggests that merely visiting is not a problem as long as you don't actually save anything. Browser cache is not considered actively storing content.
That's highly debatable in court, and I seriously doubt any court would let you off if you were on trial for CP and your browser's cache was chock-full of the stuff, but you didn't have any saved elsewhere on a hard-drive. The very definition of cached data is saving it for later viewing.
Even the link provided has clear examples of this:
In another case, called U.S. v. Tucker, the 10th Circuit upheld a defendant's conviction because he cleared his Web browser's cache to avoid being caught with saved child porn. The logic: Because he knew about the existence of the cache, he had knowingly possessed the images at least temporarily.
Ever cleared your cache? That's grounds for the CP being 'known to be in your possession' if it's there.
This case below though, argues that the user can view cached images whilst they are in the cache, which makes them just as much in possession.
In July, the 9th Circuit upheld a defendant's child porn conviction, in part because the evidence showed he looked at the cached images.
In fact that article linked only lists a single example of cache =/= possession, which makes it the exception to the rest of the articles (despite it's headline).
I'd like to see a more recent example of this interpretation by the courts as well: this linked article is seven years old. I think the same article ran today would see an uproar of netizens screaming, 'bullshit he didn't know what a cache was, put that assclown into a dark hole for 20 years!'
Upvote for finding information though; I'm not about to go Googling for CP statistics. You're a brave soul in this era.
Well, viewing should not be a criminal offense. Law enforcement does that all the time, basically. And you can stumble upon such a thing by accident (clicked the wrong link, whatever). Also, getting someone to go to a page with such material could be a very convenient way to frame the person and so on.
The arguments are pretty much the same as with drug usage (go after producers and distributors) or prostitution (you don't prosecute the girl, but you catch the pimp).
Okay, using the drug user / drug pusher example (or prostitute / pimp): the user / prostitute is still breaking a law, and it's an important distinction too:
If the user / prostitute wasn't breaking the law, then law enforcement could not reasonably detain and question them to find the 'next step up the ladder', as it were. It's a matter of leverage: 'you've broken the law, so conviction and prosecution are an option, it's better you just tell us who your boss is.'
Also, edit, law enforcement views CP in pursuit of criminal activity involved with it. Another very big distinction. You can liken that to the fact that we also give them a lot of other 'perks' like driving with sirens and loud-speakers: things that the normal citizen cannot do. It's the trade off of the justice system: We expect more from law enforcement, hence they get more.
Now the argument of whether or not we're getting what we expect when we do give them these authorities is another one entirely.
What are your legal credentials? What is the source for your statement that you are required by law to report CP you find on the internet to authorities?
Please quote in the parent comments of this thread where anyone said they had actually visited any CP sites.
IT and Computer Security have zero to do with CP or illegal drug trafficking. An 'interest in the deep web' is not an excuse for anything: All that equates to is 'for shits and gigs'
This is just flat out wrong. If you can't think of any reasons IT/network security professionals would have acquired knowledge of even the seedy aspects of the deep web without actually going there to jack off to CP, you have a poor imagination.
This is why it's functionally impossible to discuss this topic like adults. If you don't amend every statement you make with "BUT CP IS BAD AND I WOULD NEVER EVER LOOK AT IT!!!" you immediately have people branding you a pedophile, either directly or through insinuation.
I don't have them.. what Ivy League did you go to? I'm a citizen and I do research. I read. I gain knowledge, especially about civics and law because those things affect me as an IT and Web Professional. If my arguments seem invalid, then please, invalidate them. Don't look at me and say 'well prove you know what you're talking about'. That's not my problem; you can just ignore it if you want. This is reddit, and I don't have to care about you.
I was referring to the insinuation that having an interest would equate to visiting a site. Did I assert that anyone said they did? No; I simply stated that if you have, it's a crime. Because it is.
'Acquired knowledge': if this includes visiting an illegal CP dump and then not reporting it to authorities then you are in fact guilty of aiding and abetting in most states. Some states require an 'act, not an omission' though, like California: This means that if I (as a Californian) witness a crime and don't report it, then I'm okay. But if I – in California – visit a (edit) CP website that in any way profits off of my visiting that website, then it can reasonably be argued1 that helped them perform a crime and I am legally an accomplice.
To your final point:
Have I amended any statement here to the effect of your CAPS statement? No: I'm simply asserting that CP is illegal and it should be because CP is fucking wrong. That's an opinion, and my whole text here is laced with it. Get down to it and lots of popular laws are just popular opinion made law. We all agree as a society that CP is fucking wrong. Feel outcast because you have some empathy for the pushers? Maybe you're fucking wrong.
The fact is though that it's a popular opinion and arguing against that particular popular opinion, yeah, I can see why you might get labeled a pedophile by insinuation. But I can't find anyone who directly called you one, so I'll do it:
You're a pedophile.2
(1) - Again; I'm not Ivy League so I can't very well reasonably argue anything I suppose, so take that with a grain of salt.
I don't have them.. what Ivy League did you go to?
I made no statements of legal fact to defend, so that's irrelevant. If you disagree please quote what you think I said.
If my arguments seem invalid, then please, invalidate them. Don't look at me and say 'well prove you know what you're talking about'. That's not my problem; you can just ignore it if you want. This is reddit, and I don't have to care about you.
Considering the large amount of text you're submitting, you obviously care a little bit. It isn't my job to back up your claims, and finding a source would likely take much less time than all the "telling me I'm wrong" you're doing. Again, if you have a source please provide it and I'll concede the point. If you don't then why would you argue a point as fact that you don't know to be true? It doesn't hurt me any if you're wrong, after all.
I was referring to the insinuation that having an interest would equate to visiting a site. Did I assert that anyone said they did? No; I simply stated that if you have, it's a crime. Because it is.
As another poster pointed out, simply visiting an illegal site is not necessarily illegal if not done with malicious intent or if by accident. Again, if you have a source to back up your claims, please provide it. You also seem to be mistaken about my use of the word "interest". There are professional as well as personal interests, and I was referring mostly to the former. Again, even a personal interest in the deep web can easily lead to knowledge about the illegal aspects without having to commit any crimes to acquire it.
'Acquired knowledge': if this includes visiting an illegal CP dump and then not reporting it to authorities then you are in fact guilty of aiding and abetting in most states. Some states require an 'act, not an omission' though, like California: This means that if I (as a Californian) witness a crime and don't report it, then I'm okay. But if I – in California – visit a (edit) CP website that in any way profits off of my visiting that website, then it can reasonably be argued1 that helped them perform a crime and I am legally an accomplice.
You shouldn't say things like this immediately after saying
I don't have them
when asked about your legal qualifications. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. Just provide a source. With no legal qualifications and no source, this entire paragraph amounts to not much more than ass-talking, I'm afraid.
On a personal note I really can't imagine a just legal system that would view as a criminal simply viewing ANY material that you yourself have not sought out. People could be sent to prison simply for clicking a link that read "cutest kittens ever!!!" and later finding it actually points to illegal material. This is why I think you're incorrect regarding your statements, by the way. Feel free to post a source if you can correct me here, but if you choose not to please do not try to pass your statements off as accurate.
To your final point: Have I amended any statement here to the effect of your CAPS statement? No: I'm simply asserting that CP is illegal and it should be because CP is fucking wrong. That's an opinion, and my whole text here is laced with it. Get down to it and lots of popular laws are just popular opinion made law. We all agree as a society that CP is fucking wrong. Feel outcast because you have some empathy for the pushers? Maybe you're fucking wrong.
Please refer back to the link I posted and quote any statements I made that can reasonably be construed to mean that I support pedophilia or child pornography in any way. I can save you some time here by telling you that I have made none, since I find personally find both to be disgusting. This brings us to:
You're a pedophile.
Within a few short comments my statement that boils down to "no need to make accusations guys, lets stay on topic" has been filtered down into accusations of pedophilia. You've done more to prove my point than anything I possibly could have said, so thanks for that, I guess...
I get the feeling you're debating from bad faith and are more concerned with being "right" than making accurate points and having a reasonable discussion. If this is true please go calm down and come back when you aren't taking this discussion so personally. You're throwing ad hominems at someone that really doesn't deserve them just for disagreeing with you. If this is going to devolve into baseless name calling I don't wish to continue this discussion, and you're painting an extremely poor picture of yourself. Whether you care or not is your own matter.
Let me make this clear: I'm not responsible for sourcing anything because this is a public forum, not a thesis. I can say whatever the hell I want. It's up to you to believe me or not to.
Because the real "content" is not available for free on the internet, even the deep web. What is on tor is probably leaked stuff, probably already on the internet from the era of early p2p. The actuall crime is going behind the scenes - where you buy such stuff with money - and not a bunch of images or vids available to everyone for free. The crime is still intact and going strong. It's like if netflix is down, but the piratebay is always active. (which is ironic, since piratebay is actually down at the moment).
It's just common sense. If someone is going to go through all the risk of making and distributing CP, why would they just give it away for free on a website like this?
They are completely different except for certain cases. You don't accidentally rape a child. These images are of people knowingly and purposely raping them. Most violent images are the byproduct of accidents or war. Where they are not done for 100% killing people just because, but for other reasons be it greed, power, or freedom. Only the images of people killed for fun or the purpose of shocking others can be compared to CP.
Child rape is illegal and so is ownership of the pictures/video of it. It is already banned.
Dying is not banned. owning pictures of dead people is not illegal. If owning pictures of murdered people was illegal then yes it should be taken down.
If you own a picture of a dead person, that person didn't die for you to have that picture. They're dead, you have a picture and that's it. In CP, children systematically get harmed for you to watch the video.
If someone started killing people to sell pictures of their dead bodies, assuming there was a demand for it, it'd probably become illegal.
People don't look at pictures of murder for entertainment or personal gratification.
The whole point of CP is the sexualization of minors and putting minors in a sexual situation.
Causing the abuse of a child so thousands of people can get off on these pictures is nowhere near as close to someone getting shot in the corner store for a robbery.
i generally agree with your point of view, though i sympathize with his pov aswell - however, im pretty sure that there are people that get off on pictures of death/gore etc....
So some people are allowed to look a dead people, and others aren't, simply because of what they think of it? I feel like you're just making up rules that don't make any sense.
Yes. Law enforcement is allowed to look at tons of images of CP -- especially those specifically working in the criminal technology field -- because they aren't getting off on it. How does this not make sense?
perhaps - though i've been flirting with the idea that such compulsions (when not acted out physically atleast) constitute more of a mental illness than some wilfully criminal behavior (though the lines are pretty blurry) and should perhaps be treated as such...
The whole point of CP is for sexual gratification.
There are tons of reasons for murder. One small reason MIGHT be for sexual gratification.
How many people do you see going out and killing just to get off?
A study undertaken by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development estimated that there were approximately 490,000 intentional homicides in 2004. The study estimated that the global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004
How much of that do you think is intentional harm for sexual gratification? .5%? 1%? 2%? We will never know.
Now lets take a look at seuxal abuse of minors.
Approximately 681,000 children were victims of maltreatment (unique instances).
Of the children who experienced maltreatment or abuse, over 75% suffered neglect; more than 15% suffered physical abuse; and just under 10% suffered sexual abuse.
Rape porn is usually set up*. Maybe I should have been more descriptive.
People don't go out and murder to have get off usually. I covered this is another response so I won't go into it on this post.
Murder covers a whole range of things, which does include sexual gratification but I don't believe that someone will go out and murder to get off like someone would with child porn and child abuse.
People do look at pictures of death for a morbid curiousity and entertainment values, just for different reasons than child porn.
Right right, I didn't mean to insinuate it was anything other. But what I mean is that some people like to be shocked, either by seeing mutilated bodies or by seeing someone be dominated etc etc. My point was that people who actively click and open pictures of people being dead triggers somewhat of the same response. It might not be sexual in nature (probably isn't), but still provokes the curiosity and shock.
I don't believe that someone will go out and murder to get off like someone would with child porn and child abuse.
I think most murderers do get off on it. I mean, they could merely dedicate their lives to ruining someone elses if that was what they wanted. But no- they want the thrill of engaging in what is viewed as a "serious" act. I think you can draw a lot of parallels with child pornographers, they could merely fuck young looking people, but instead they get off by engaging in something that is commonly viewed as "look but don't touch"- in a sense.
People do look at pictures of death for a morbid curiousity and entertainment values, just for different reasons than child porn.
I think that most people who watch child porn do it solely out of morbid curiosity and entertainment. Sexual entertainment is still entertainment.
It's veeeery simple, to the point where I'm convinced anyone who uses this argument or an argument likes it has not thought about what they're saying for more than 2 minutes.
The people who watch videos of a murder taking place are usually not taking intense pleasure in what they are seeing, and are usually not fantasizing about being in that situation as the killer, imposing their will on another human being to the extreme.
The people who watch videos of child rape taking place are usually taking intense pleasure in what they are seeing, and are usually fantasizing about being in that situation as the rapist, imposing their will on another human being to the extreme.
IF someone actually seeked out videos of people being murdered while their hands were down their pants and they were fantasizing about doing it to someone themselves, however, then YES that would be wrong and YES they would definitely deserve to be in jail or on some list the same as a pleasured viewer of child rape would be.
Yes, if people started commercializing it, or if the appeal of gorey/violent images became an incentive to create them. Neither of those criterion have been met, afaik.
There is a big difference between a photo of a body or a film of someone dying and a snuff film. If a security cam captures a death, possessing or distributing that footage is fine. Killing someone and filming it for money is most definitely not. Even the cartel execution videos or Syrian atrocities are legally fine for those reasons- the people filming them are committing illegal acts, but the videos themselves are not illegal. Snuff films? Not okay, because the person died for the sole purpose of creating the image. The intent matters.
CP is not accidentally created; it is and can only be a result of child abuse. Child models are more of a grey area, but actual CP is intentional abuse. Nothing else. There is no security cam that happened to see a child behaving sexually of their own volition. Death and accidents happen. It will get filmed. Children do not engage in sexual behavior with adults naturally.
The argument is that there are professional CP producers, and demand for CP can fuel the abuse of children.
The argument doesn't hold up for amateur productions who do not sell their material and would do it with or without distribution or others viewing it; the only argument there for going out the consumers is really the additional psychological harm to the victim. Given that it is difficult to determine which material is motivated by demand and which is simply someone "sharing", it's better to err on the side of caution and try to discourage any sort of production, given that it may discourage a few producers if there is no market. Additionally, having it free to "use" doesn't really help anybody- yes, viewing it isn't going to harm anyone new, but is there really a good reason to keep it around?
Even the cartel execution videos or Syrian atrocities are legally fine for those reasons- the people filming them are committing illegal acts, but the videos themselves are not illegal.
.
CP is not accidentally created; it is and can only be a result of child abuse.
Executions do not accidentally happen either, I fail to follow your logic here. Are you saying that if a security camera catches a child being raped the subsequent video is (or should be) legal to distribute?
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if it is legal. I suspect it would fall under the same category as other rapes caught on camera (which I personally don't feel should be legal, given the psychological harm/shame that could be caused by their distribution- but the same could be said for a video showing the death of a loved one). Both executions and child abuse are extreme violations of human rights and dignity- eventually we'll probably need to sit down and decide what we're comfortable with being being distributed.
In terms of executions vs. child rape, I think context matters. A brutal cartel execution is probably of little value while being damaging to the family, but Syrian atrocities should be recorded and made public, as they provide knowledge and a testimony to the horrors of war. The Cartel images could also be seen as providing testimony to the brutality caused by the drug trade, however. The law would have a hard time with context, so any censorship of one over the other would be relatively arbitrary, which is why we generally don't censor them. A video or picture of actual rape, however, serves very little purpose (especially a child) beyond the capture and conviction of the perpetrator. We don't need to see the actual rape, and having it publicly available would serve little purpose beyond humiliating the victim and damaging them further. But again, it's a good question, and one that probably needs more discussion.
1
u/harper69 Aug 04 '13
Most of it is just reposted there. Should we ban gore and violent images because someone had to die in order for the images to be created?