Slashdot Mirror
Gore Site Operator Arrested For Posting Video of Murder
theshowmecanuck writes "According to the Montreal Gazette, 'The owner and operator of a well-known 'real gore' website is charged with corrupting morals for posting a video allegedly depicting the murder of student Jun Lin by Luka Magnotta. Magnotta, 30, is currently in custody charged with first-degree murder in the death of the 33-year-old Chinese international student, who was killed in Montreal in May 2012. The victim's severed limbs were then mailed to political parties and elementary schools, and his torso found inside a discarded suitcase.' A news interview with the detective in charge of the case, airing on CTV as I type this, says he believes the web site hosts a lot of racist content and unimaginable violence. You should note that Canada has less free speech than in America (we have 'hate crime laws'), but there will likely be some arguments in this vein. The charge against the operator is quite rare and no-one so far remembers it ever being used before."
+1 appropriate.
Make me glad the NSA spys on everyone.
Someone should be keeping tabs on nutbags like this.
Now if only they'd get off their fat lazy goverment asses and do something about all the sick stuff they know about...
Why does this useless website post canadian news?
This kind of thing should be handled through social ostracism, not laws. Politicians leading mobs to silence people is nothing honorable.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Sum Tin Wong
Wi Tu Lo
Ho Lee Fuk
Bang Ding Ow
It was used against a special fx pro, for an over realistic gore site, but it failed : http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12/23/remy-couture_n_2355922.html
After all, his boss invented the Internet.
There are some things simply beyond the pale in any decent society. Entertaining people through showing a grisly, cruel murder can do nothing but harm the family, friends, and love ones of the victim. It has absolutely no political, educational, moral effect, nor any deterrent to any crime. It has no value whatsoever to shock and delight those deranged enough to view a heinous act.
The Framers had clear reasons for promoting freedom of speech, primarily to serve the political health of the nation by fostering free debate. And yes, they came from a society that still had public executions, some of which were (in England at least) just as brutal as this crime as more. But they did not create freedom of speech to promote sheer depravity. Laws exist in the context of their society, even what we consider natural law, and there are some things that a society has every damn right to ban - child pornography, and yes, showing a murder for fun.
What must be going through the minds of this poor woman's parents? Is that pain worth a shock to an increasingly cynical population? This was beyond the pale, and does corrupt public morals by desensitizing people to murder. The owner of the site deserves these charges.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
If a crime-scene video WOULD fall afoul of US obscenity laws if it were fictional/staged, AND it is not presented in a way that gives it free speech protection, it might also be deemed illegal because it is obscene.
Fortunately, the bar is quite low. This allows journalists to publish gruesome war-crimes photos or videos without fear of arrest, while outlawing similar-looking "staged" pictures and videos.
Child pornography is also illegal in the United States partly (but not exclusively) under the theory that such images are "crime-scene photos." I say "not exclusively" because such images created abroad, created before current laws were passed, or created in situations where no crime other than snapping the shutter occurs (e.g. self-photography, legal sex between two people allowed to have sex with each other but one or both is under 18, etc.) is still generally illegal to produce, share, or possess in the United States.
When I read the headline, the first thing I thought of was Al Gore.
that it took more than a year to develop?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The only people here with corrupt morals are the police and the politicians who passed this law.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
The idea that people shouldn't be entertained by violence is the same argument that's been used to ban video games, movies, etc. Think about ALL of the implications what you're saying here -- are you sure this is really the road you want to go down?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I once lived near Canada and admired the view that anything related to an upcoming trial be kept out of the news. Where it's treated like entertainment or tantalizing marketing in the United States, it's good to see Canada believes the public should not be forming opinions based upon partial evidence or hearsay.
Looks to my untrained eye like the site operator was violating this ban, beyond simply poor taste.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
this is violence at a new level and should not be acceptable behavior. People can be traumatized from such a groosem event. Children among others may fear for their live may find carrying a gun might make them feel safter.
The relevant video is here: http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/7331870/1_Lunatic_1_Ice_Pick
One rule for State sanctioned 'journalists', another for everyone else. Kids at school can be FORCED to watch films showing Nazi atrocities, because it is deemed helpful to the current nation of Israel, but the same schools would face prosecution if they attempted to show film footage of atrocities carried out daily by Israel against all they label as 'sub-Human' in places like Gaza.
Who is to judge when evidence from true crime scenes crosses the line? You will notice there is never a universal ban based on assessment of content. No, the bans are political based on the background of the 'victim' and the background of the 'aggressor'. Gore is fine if it encourages the viewer to support racist violence by Israel, or to cheer the wars waged by the UK and USA in Libya, Syria or Iraq.
Journalists working for Murdoch's rags in the USA and UK are the first to press for punishment and jail for any ordinary citizen in possession of the 'wrong' kinds of true crime videos. For instance, the UK and USA provided their terrorists currently destroying Syria with chemical weapons and the training to use them. But these terrorists have a nasty habit of shooting everything they do on cell phones, immediately providing proof of the true nature of the conflick in Syria. It is rather annoying for the warmonger Obama to have his plans thwarted when he promised to destroy the Syrian government (including all civil servants and their families) if the regime appeared to use chemical weapons in its defence (as the USA would do- why else do you think Obama has the biggest collection of chemical weapons on the planet?)
The USA, UK, Canada and Australia would love the sheeple to finally accept the concept of officially licensed 'journalists' so that the concept of citizen journalists could be exterminated once and for all. Unfortunately for the elites, English speaking nations have no tradition of state-sanctioned journalism (that the sheeple are supposed to be aware of anyway). The method in the English -speaking nations is to allow media giants to emerge that are owned/run by people belonging to the elite. Before the days of the Internet, this scheme worked brilliantly. The price of competing with the media giants was far too high, so citizen journalists could make only the smallest splash.
The (ex?-)nazi, George Soros, is at the forefront to outlaw all influential Internet opinions not directly under his or mainstream control. He directly funds attacks on all those who dare to oppose propaganda operations by the mainstream media, or his pseudo-alternative mock-left-wing sites. Soros funded political support for legislation in the UK that would force ALL 'journalistic' activity (save for websites that ONLY contain content from a single named individual- comments included) to be required to join an incredibly expensive 'insurance' scheme to ensure funds for libel actions.
George Soros is able to smirk and say "I haven't banned citizen journalism in the UK- I've just forced all journalists to be responsible- and if you can't afford to be responsible, that isn't my problem". In the UK, truth is NOT a defence against libel actions. UK courts, with the full backing of Soros, found a twitter that stated "why is McAlpine trending :)" to be libellous. The named politician was a famous supporter of convicted serial child rapist Graham Ovenden, and collected images made of the rape victims by the painter. But the truth is no defence in a UK libel court. McAlpine claimed his reputation had been damaged, and that was certainly true. Ovenden's intimate friendship with McAlpine and other senior members of the British establishment ensured that Ovenden's lifetime commitment to the worst forms of child abuse failed to gain any jail time, even when the court found him guilty of such sickening crimes.
Jimmy Savile's (one of the world's worst child abusers) friends, including the Prince of Wales (yes, that freak who would be King should the Queen die or abdicate, which is why she is determined to outlive Char
It's very strange that as an outsider looking in the US commentators here seem to think that the damage caused by showing snuff is ok, yet the damage caused by two teenagers sexting is not.
As a nation you Americans are very strange.
The idea that posting grotesque, destructive and criminal behavior as entertainment should be protected as "free speech" is ridiculous. Notably, the "free speech" provision in the IS Constitution were meant to protect political discourse, and that's all. The unintended side effect of permitting essentially everything else is simple a result of sloppy execution, and the fact that "political" content is almost impossible to define.
You can argue as you wish about that should or should not be censored, but the free speech argument is pretty spurious with respect to the INTENT of the provisions and has significance only in purely legalistic terms.
Here is a case where property rights gives us a reasonable answer. The victim never gave consent to be filmed during his murder, the film was made under duress. Those choosing to propagate the film can be presumed to recognize that. Yet they chose to attempt to profit by selling manifestly stolen property. Throw them in jail.
If this were to occur in the US, would a prosecution under obscenity laws be legal?
The bar is high, but compared with other things subject to the law, (i.e. the "Miller" test applied to pornography) this would seem to cross it.
Just for reference purposes here is the letter of the law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-75.html#docCont
Maybe it's because this law is very vague and open to interpretation that it hasn't been used much.
Posting gore and violence and criminal acts in print or online for the purpose of added traffic is IMnsHO immoral. IMnsHO publishing a (theoretically) a gory snuff film with dismemberment and cannibalism justifies a charge.
The prosecution will have prove to a judge that a: the publisher did not post this stuff for the public good, and/or b: he didn't pull it down after the public good was realized.
IANAL .. but I am a canuck (usually right winged though, except for today).
As soon as the video was uploaded they (bestgore users) notified the police that they thought it was magnota.
Police in Canada didn't do shit and resulted in a manhunt.
Now they are blaming this guy for some BS.
Fuck you Canada.
Fuck you.
We know, when watching a horror film, that real people did not die to make the movie. Showing the death of a real person as "entertainment" is a different matter entirely.
Does it cross the line? I don't know. It would make an interesting test case; if it was porn instead, it would seem to be over the line established in the Miller test.
bestiality porn is NOT against the law in the US
It is if it crosses the line into obscenity. Not all bestiality crosses that line but some does and the fact that it's bestiality usually edges it closer to the line than adult-people-porn.
there IS a direct correlation between child pornography and child abuse (the first CANNOT exist without the other)
Generally true but not always.
The newly-married under-18 teenagers filming their honeymoon "in detail" are creating child pornography if they do it in America.
Ditto the 13 year old guy playing with himself in front of a mirror with a camera, purely for his own amusement.
Granted, these examples should never justify "making child porn legal" but they do justify creating the "it was my own body, I have a right to record it" absolute defense and an "it was my boy/girlfriend and he/she said yes" mitigation-defense for people close in age that would turn the charge into a non-sex-crime misdemeanor.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
and send them to institutions. ones where they cannot get out. no good will come from such people. ever.
The vid, at least what was uploaded to BestGore, doesn't show a murder, only a gruesome dismemberment. The first part with the victim alive and masked is fake.
"For a period of 16 hours after killing the girl, Sim dismembers the body with the chopping knife, breaking the knife in the process. He leaves the room to buy one more knife..."
http://www.koreabang.com/2013/stories/teenage-sociopath-dismembers-girl-reveals-details-online.html
"According to Van Allen, even Paul Bernardo — one of Canada’s most depraved killers — found it difficult to dismember one of his victims, Leslie Mahaffy, whose body was sliced up and encased in cement. Van Allen — who assisted with the Bernardo investigation and attended his trial — said the killer testified in court that dismembering Mahaffy was the “second-most disgusting thing he’d done in his life.” (Bernardo never revealed what the most disgusting thing was, Van Allen said, and nobody asked him.)"
Not to say Magnotta didn't have a part in it all, just that it's not likely he could have done the job alone, what with dragging a body from bed to bath, bleeding out, washing parts in a tub with a small drain, putting arm in freezer, dragging back again, etc., while recording, editing, uploading. There was an assistant, willing or unwilling or he was somebody else's assistant.
Why were members of a highly homophobic church monitoring BestGore anyway? Who told them the time of the premiere, so they could make the announcement to the world.
This might sound crass, posting anon.
I watched the phone-line guy video where he was beheaded by terrorists during the Iraq war. I didn't enjoy what I saw, but doing so seemed important to help understand the pit of depravity that humans can succumb to.
As a young teenager (far to young, but I had free reign at the video rental place via a signed paper saying I could rent all but the porno - which I found in my dads sock drawer...), I watched the Faces of Death series of videos. The money brain scene is fixed in my mind, as is the execution by firing squad. One can learn a lot about being decent and civil from scenes of gross violence.
I believe that grotesque images of violence and even death should be seen, in order to help us understand how precious life is. It is easy to take a life, and to leave the path of despair it causes.
What about war footage, showing soldiers killed and maimed on the battlefield (WW2, Korea). What of the numerous videos of US helicopters fire bombing villages during Vietnam? The death isn't obvious in the fireballs. Seeing death up front is much more powerful. The images of Hiroshima children are chilling, but very important:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hiroshima+child&client=firefox-a&hs=jay&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=5DvnUfvlIsSbqwHB8YDICg&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1920&bih=968
Savage acts require savage justice. But making savage acts available for viewing, not so much in my opinion. Reality, as horrific as is can be, is just reality. Choose not to watch if you wish, but understand, that for some, it is a learning experience about evil.
My eyes and person have witnessed events worse than death from the pain and torture of a terrible disease. Death would have been, and eventually was, welcomed. It should have come sooner, and would have, if not for the modern medical system and it's "miracles".
You should note that Canada has less free speech than in America (we have 'hate crime laws'),
From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
We have the exact same free speech rights as the US.
I say this because the internet needs to be free without rules or regulations with exception of protection to TLD.
What are you smoking? In the first place, there is no footage of Nazi crimes that is in the same league of graphic detail as this. In the second place, the BBC regularly shows footage of violence shot in Gaza, and is regularly accused of anti-Israeli bias because of it. In the third place, "journalists working for Murdoch's rags" would campaign for absolutely anything, up to and including genocide, if they thought it would sell more newspapers. In the fourth place, the Leveson proposals - the sinister UK law that you're somehow attributing to George Soros as Responsible Evil Mastermind - specifically exclude private blogs, and indeed any publication that's not "published in the course of a business". In the fifth place, who the fuck do you think George Soros is, that he gets to "support" British courts? And in the sixth place, anyone who uses the word "sheeple" has betrayed themself as an arrogant twat whose opinions are worth far less than they seem to think they are.
TL;DR: Who the hell modded this crap up?
The video is still hosted at the alternative sites and the larger more popular sites
http://theync.com/
http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/
http://www.ogrishforum.com/
and others,
they all still have the video up as well as fresh meat daily :P
I find the idea extremely 'icky', to say the least, but it depends where you are. While Canada has different rules and limitations, if I remember right the supreme court shot down banning 'artificial' CP. Rules can be different on possession if you've been convicted, are out on parole, and the restriction is part of your parole terms.
I don't read AC A human right
Grisly, grotesque, dripping reality. It's the thing that science strives to accurately describe.
Reality is a multi-faceted thing, like a diamond.
Reality ranges from whimsical and happy, to joyous, to mournful, to horrific to grisly. The Internet just allows you to see what you previously could not. If you don't want to look at the whole of it, don't. But don't force it to be hidden from the rest of us. That would be deceptive.
There are some very unpleasant truths out there.
The mere fact that the victim is in the film does not imply that the victim owns the film. The property right argument works the other way: whoever owns the film has the right to share it with others.
There are laws regarding the use of someone's image without a model release, but they aren't based on (or even consistent with) property rights.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
So instead of arbitrarily banning movies of real murders, we can base it on an equally arbitrary, but more general, declaration of a likeness as "property" which can be "stolen."
It's great that you have a fetish for this stuff, but it's not particularly compelling outside your sphere.
The exceptional "no crime committed" child porn are probably morally equivalent to filming an execution, self-defense-related death, war-related death, legal euthanasia/assisted suicide, or any other other legal homicide.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So... if a news program shows a video where someone is getting killed, and that person didn't give consent to be filmed... what? Charge the news program with a crime?
Perhaps. But laws restricting exploitation of crimes in this manner could be based on a property rights argument, thus sidestepping any 1st Amendment question. You may have a right to free expression, but you do not have a right to publish for your benefit that which you do not own. The fact that someone shows up with something to sell you that he probably does not own is not necessarily a defense.
Gee, if I own a disk drive with a digital copy of Pacific Rim, do I have a right to share that with others? Perhaps gaining revenue from advertising along the way? Obviously not.
A piece of celluloid or tape or a disk drive may give the benefit of the doubt in certain cases, but it is already true that one does not get the benefit of the doubt in all cases. It is an appropriate act of the legislature to expand the property rights and privacy rights of not consenting individuals.
i.e. while Hollywood had a century showing graphical killing, desmembering, torturing, mutilating, melting, or just cheering mass murdering, hate speech and promoting addictive and nocive substances, they get the approval seal from the state/law/etc (and in a lot of cases, the script gets a little consulting for making the message closer to the current government agenda).
What is the diference between a "real" killing (if you didn't do it, at least) and a fictional one that depicts in a even more gruesome way a real one? Would the director of i.e. the Enola Gay movie be convicted for mass murdering?
I seem to recall, in the immediate aftermath of this, it was revealed the site owner, and various visitors of the site who saw the video, called police and tried to warn them that a murder had been committed. The police didn't believe them until the body parts started showing up. If the police had bothered to act in time, people wouldn't have had body parts mailed to them, and the victim's family would have a more complete, less decomposed, body to bury.
This was in the news afterwards, and embarrassed police had to deal with questions about it during press conferences.
"Accuse me of 'corrupting morality', which, I wish I had the power to do".
So if you show video's which depict real life situations you're charges with morals corruption?
Why aren't they going after news-sites and tv-program's? a lot of times, they show exactly the same video's..
I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous..
"news for nerds, stuff that matters"?
show me the contract that says he agreed to hide crimes and commit crimes himself by doing so.
And also, in case you really are too fucking sick and thick to know, you cannot sign away your statutory rights in a contract. No signing a contract for slavery, no contract for signing away your free speech rights.
No
Such
Thing.
Yup, just like the hate-on for Obama is because he's a nigga in the whitehouse, Soros is The Evil Mastermind In Residence because he's a Jew.
It really isn't any more complicated than that.
Should we truly apply the concept of free speech as naively as some believe they do, would tutelage of any language to any infant not be necessarily a crime most heinous? No, since speech by definition must convey a message. Ergo, a speaker, being a generator of speech, must belong to one of three categories: A confabulator of fiction, a proclaimer of supposed fact or a deceiver. Pandering sans a (usually moralistic) narrative framework is blather - not even nonsense. It fails to be complete fiction. In this case the publication merely echoes an immensely bestial action (a murder), the agent to such an act is removed from veritable debate by classical western tradition. What do I fail to understand? Slightest analysis appears to crush the notion this article has anything to do with free speech whatsoever. I lack an opinion on it's legality and lack necessity to form, let alone share, my moral standing regarding this type of vapid publication. (Be it that the video and persumably it's vehicle site fail to meet the basic criteria to count as articles of actual speech, I propose we could equally and perhaps more fruitfully and better serving us individual members of the readers collective "how acrid must flatulence be that we are in the right removing it's progenitor from civilized society?")
It's not the same argument. Games, movies, etc. aren't real. They're fantasy. The distinction between the two is important.
This is Canada, wherein if moral indignation is expressed by Christians, it is called incitement to hatred and people get hauled like a side of beef in a slaughterhouse to the provincial Human Rights Commission. However, when the same exact words are uttered by Non-Christians (especially Muslims)... crickets, frogs, katydids, etc.
Another fine opinion from The Fucking Psychopath®.
Il est une autre opinion amende de Le Psychopathe Damnable[MdC]
Though in the true vein of Slashdot I would have used a car analogy thusly:
If your buddy say commits a crime, like stealing a car. Then you, knowing it is stolen drive it around. Guess what you are an accessory. You will be charged with a crime if found out, particularly if you publicize the fact of exactly what you are doing.
Say you don't even know the guy who stole the car, or that the car was even stolen, and it is found out, you are going to lose the car, and too bad for you that you didn't know it was stolen.
So no the guy didn't murder and chop up someone and film it (which presumably is many serious crimes). He just posted the film online for all to see. I would see this also as a crime (abet a lesser one of course), and punishable. Yes I am Canadian.
Yes I would agree that this is a slippery slope that needs be carefully applied, but in this case I think personally I would agree.
That said I have never even heard of the law "Corrupting Morals" which does sound rather dubious and perhaps arbitrary. Hopefully it is a well defined and strictly applied law. You would think there would be other more pertinent laws he could have been charged with, so I am not sure why they may have picked this obscure one (or perhaps it is just obscure as it is hardly ever used, as it is very defined and limited use)?
It's illegal to possess a self-made underaged-porn pic.
I would argue that possessing self-made underaged porn by the photographer (or by his parents, if "stored on his behalf until he is 18" - i.e. not used for viewing) or possessed by anyone after he turns 18 with his permission is morally equivalent to possessing a photo of a legal homicide or suicide (yeah, I know, suicide is illegal, but pretend it's not), assuming the photo was taken with the permission of all parties in the photo, that all living parties of the photo do not object to the person who is possessing it having it, and that prior to death, the homicide/suicide victim expressly said it was okay for the image to be either distributed or be in the hands of the person who possesses it.
Having said that, the "permission" should be given freely and without any financial or similar reward that turns it from "free speech" to "commercial speech." In other words, no signing a big contract to sell the rights of that photo you made of yourself when you were 14 and no selling of that suicide photo of your next-of-kin, and no "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" bartering.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Different kinds of property rights apply, really.
On private property, the owners have control over what can and cannot be filmed/released. "I didn't want to appear in that video" generally doesn't apply, but permission to film on private property may. IIRC, there are some exceptions for journalism. See: case law on slaughter house videos, etc. Video of a murder occurring in public should, IMO, be public.
If the murderer had been advertising for S&W in the film, the publisher would have been liable under misappropriation of image.
There *are* Son of Sam laws on profiting from crime. If the murderer filmed this himself, or a co-conspirator did, I don't see why standard asset forfeiture would not apply.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling