Gore Site Operator Arrested For Posting Video of Murder

Summay is incorrect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 10:16 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:Summay is incorrect by FrankSchwab · 2013-07-17 11:22 · Score: 5, Informative

Because the GP is referring to "The charge against the operator is quite rare and no-one so far remembers it ever being used before" from TFSummary, and brings us notice of a similar case with the same charge. "Informative" is the correct mod in this case.

--
And the worms ate into his brain.

And the torment of her family and loved ones? by bstarrfield · 2013-07-17 10:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

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. */

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by mirix · 2013-07-17 10:34 · Score: 3, Informative

The victim was a guy, for what it's worth.

--
Sent from my PDP-11
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by ackthpt · 2013-07-17 10:44 · Score: 3, Informative

[snip]
The Framers had clear reasons for promoting freedom of speech...
[snip]
Canada. Not USA. Canada.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by broken_chaos · 2013-07-17 10:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

The comment has no less validity if you remove the letters "wo" from the last paragraph. There is no legitimate reason to post something like this. It's disgusting and unnecessary. Anyone who has a desire to look at it is the sort of person who should seek professional help.
I'm Canadian, not a huge fan of the current political climate in Canada, but I can't get outraged over this. Though I will say the guy who's been arrested is a bit of an idiot for saying that Canada is a 'police state' for having confiscated computer equipment directly related to what he's been charged with... Call it a 'police state' for how the G20 was handled, not because you went and got yourself arrested for doing something that is quite likely illegal and definitely disgusting.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by Motard · 2013-07-17 10:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's interesting that the first three replies to this post zoomed in on a one word factual error that isn't really of any consequence with regard to the rest of the three paragraph comment. It's like they think they're going for the win.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by WaffleMonster · 2013-07-17 10:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
See the problem here is others get to use the very same words to justify banning of a great number of tasteless things such as horror flicks, gratuitious violence in every movie worth seeing and public service announcements consisting of little kids taking great joy in dismembering a certain purple dinosaur.
It always comes down to your personally shocked by obscene behavior of others therefore you feeling justified in taking that logical leap therefore such behavior ought to be illegal.
I personally would feel better if rotton.com and every fucked up chick who digs that shit where fed to sharks... except the price of freedom is such that I must tolerate all manner of distasteful assholes in this country. When you take tolerance away the cure is worse than the disease. There are plenty of countries which enforce decency and respect thru state sanctioned violence you could move to if you felt so compelled.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by elucido · 2013-07-17 10:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Fuck censorshp. A lot of stuff on the Internet can torment people for years. It's not like anything else gets deleted from the Internet.
This is about one group of people how another group of people can be allowed to think. If you don't like Gore then don't go to the site.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by Qzukk · 2013-07-17 11:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

But they did not create freedom of speech to promote sheer depravity.
And yet if you give governments the power to ban things because they are "depraved" suddenly everyone despised by the people in power are all depraved. Funny you mentioned banning child porn, it seems that every time some government comes up with a new child porn blocklist, people find examples of exactly this misplaced label of "depravity", so you can't claim this doesn't happen.
The founders gave the government limited powers for a reason. The governments of their time took every mile they could from every inch they could force their subjects to give, and the governments of our time are no different.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by Ardyvee · 2013-07-17 11:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

To be honest, while I wouldn't want to see whatever it is that was posted (though I might so I am able to see just where it is regarding to what I allow myself to watch, and to be able to have better opinions), I think that there may be legitimate reasons to post something like this. People may want to expose themselves to this kind of content so that they know just what kind of thing humanity is capable. They might be interested in it as a source of ideas for a book, a movie or a TV series (you know, there is a whole genre around criminals and what they do). Or simply to raise awareness to those that want to listen.*
To be honest, while there are things I wouldn't mind not seeing again and not thinking "somewhere this exists", I believe in freedom of speech. If I were to vote, I would vote against banning such content (unless given a very damn good reason, besides people not liking it). And on the other hand it is because some content exist that I know some of my limits -- what I'm capable of watching and enjoying and what I decide I would rather simply close.
Now, I don't know what the parents may be thinking. Probably something along the lines of "why don't you respect the memory of my child" or something (assuming of course they are against this, which I don't know). But I have no idea how showing the video of the murder is a disrespect if it is what happened and in no way altered. Because that's what happened. Unless they are asking to respect what they want to remember of their child (which doesn't include getting killed), in which case I will disagree with them and disregard their request.
*I'll admit I can't really come up with any reason somebody might want to watch it, or share it (assuming what I've read is accurate). What I came up with sounds shitty to me, too. But I reject "disgusting and unnecessary" or damaging to the family as valid reason to BAN the sharing of such content. If individuals want to take into account those reasons, they are free to do so. If I'm ever found in that position, I'll then face the question whether or not I care enough about the family of the victim and whether or not I'm okay with sharing it with others (I would not deny access to those that explicitly asked and I deemed as valid [so no 12 year old kids asking for it will get it, I'm not that crazy]). Or at least I expect to be able to make that decision instead of being forced by law to act a certain way.

--
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by msobkow · 2013-07-17 11:57 · Score: 2

The "horror" is that the sick and twisted website operator thought the footage "entertaining" and tried to make a profit off it by posting it.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by c0lo · 2013-07-17 12:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

The burden of proof required on your typical internet message board, much less Slashdot, is pretty low.
You seem to assume a lot. It is up to the readers (including myself) to establish their own threshold for the level of proof.

Or, he could be a sick fuck in it for the lulz.
I dunno.
Even assuming the above is correct:
* did this sick fuck commit murders to fuel his site?
* does anyone have the right to condemn a person on the "potential misuse of the information"?
* even accepting morals into equation (who's morals?)... anyway: should a person be condemned because the society is "too weak in the moral sense"? I mean, what's the conceptual difference between this and prosecuting Galileo because he kept on publicly saying the Earth is moving and endangering the "good faith" of the society of his time?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by quantaman · 2013-07-17 12:14 · Score: 2

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.
See the problem here is others get to use the very same words to justify banning of a great number of tasteless things such as horror flicks, gratuitious violence in every movie worth seeing and public service announcements consisting of little kids taking great joy in dismembering a certain purple dinosaur.
It always comes down to your personally shocked by obscene behavior of others therefore you feeling justified in taking that logical leap therefore such behavior ought to be illegal.
I personally would feel better if rotton.com and every fucked up chick who digs that shit where fed to sharks... except the price of freedom is such that I must tolerate all manner of distasteful assholes in this country. When you take tolerance away the cure is worse than the disease. There are plenty of countries which enforce decency and respect thru state sanctioned violence you could move to if you felt so compelled.
This is a video of a real murder and dismemberment done in the most gruesome way possible. There's no artistic, political, or cultural value in this video, it's just horribly shocking.
It basically comes down to this. If you believe in absolutely unfettered free speech than this video is allowed.
If you believe in any decency restrictions at all, then this video is probably out.
I don't agree with these charges or decency restrictions on speech, though I'd order it pulled on the grounds it shows an actual person's body being dismembered, but I think this video is so far beyond anything else that you can ban it and leave the rest of the disturbing stuff untouched.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by Zynder · 2013-07-17 12:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

That is one of the classic continuum fallacies. Because the gender was wrong, then the whole argument must be wrong. Also closely related is that the debater has gotten one fact wrong therefore you cannot believe anything he says. These techniques are used when the argument itself is just so damned airtight that you have nothing to refute it. So you ridicule it (ad hominem), appeal to authority (you got it right not the debater so he's wrong on all accounts), and if you have the position/authority should those 2 not work, you appeal to the stick (It's this way and if you don't like it I'll kick your ass). Basically the OP has a solid argument that can't really be refuted by anything other than "I watch that stuff cause I want to." An argument why any of that gore would be beneficial just really can't be made. Someone prove me wrong! I bet all you can come up with is "cause I want to." If this data was not on a public facing goretube website one could make an argument that it beneficial for educating interested parties like forensic analysts, biologists, or a future criminal wanting to know exactly how to kill someone. However, this is right out in the open like youtube. This is merely entertainment of a horribly disturbing nature. I agree with OP. If this stuff gets your dick hard, you got some problems. You should seek therapy.

Now in before the haters: I understand that "cause I want to" is a reason which is your right (at least in the USA). I defended that right for you (you're welcome). However I will not accept it as being logically valid nor even worthy of any kind of debate because it adds no insight into why you hold your position. I bet plenty of you growing up had your parents tell you "because" isn't an answer. It's not and neither was "cause I want to."

note: the use of you/your/you're is not directly referring to Motard. I agree with him.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by dnaumov · 2013-07-17 12:39 · Score: 2

There is no legitimate reason to post something like this. It's disgusting and unnecessary.
That is not for you to decide. And shouldn't be for anyone else to decide either. No person is harmed in this and it's not like the family of the person is being forced to watch at gunpoint. If they don't like it, they can just not go to the website.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by Raenex · 2013-07-17 22:00 · Score: 2

Does anyone remember the "Faces of Death" series?
I do, and I watched it out of morbid curiosity, and thought it would be entertaining just like I found violence entertaining in the movies. I came away feeling sickened and depressed, and had no desire to watch any more of it.

Did I derive any value from watching that smut? I'd say that it is quite negligible, but there was in fact some value gained.
There was for me. I was sickened and disgusted by the barbaric tourists bashing a monkey's head at a dinner table so that they could eat its brains. Death by the electric chair seemed cruel and barbaric. Daredevils risking their lives and horrendous injury for the entertainment of the mob lost all value for me.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by AmiMoJo · 2013-07-17 23:48 · Score: 2

Dignity is usually considered a human right. Having people watch someone's murder or rape online would probably be considered to have stripped away that dignity.
Of course it is almost impossible to remove material from the internet, but would you argue that once an image is "out there" that person's dignity is gone and we should do nothing further to try and protect it? I don't think it's a binary thing like that.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? by chihowa · 2013-07-18 02:56 · Score: 2

Ah, the "it could always be worse" argument against making the world a better place. Sibling to the "first world problem" quip, where any desire to right wrongs is contested unless circumstances are as dire as they could possibly be. God forbid we actually learn from the lessons taught by other places and other times.

--
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.

Re:Mob rule by DM9290 · 2013-07-17 10:28 · Score: 2

How is it "mob rule" when democratically elected representatives ban something years in advance, then an independant law enforcement agency takes someone to be tried before an independant judiciary for violating it?

Your argument can be equally applied to the enforcement of any law whatsoever as being "mob rule".

the law might be an infringement of the Charter of Rights and could even be overturned by the Supreme Court, but it isn't going to be influenced by the size of mob that shows up at anybody's doorstep, or what any politician wants to say about it.

--
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.

Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 10:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Murder as free speech.
America really has something funny in its water supply.

Re:Mob rule by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 10:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

This kind of thing should be handled through social ostracism, not laws. Politicians leading mobs to silence people is nothing honorable.

So it should be handled by mob rule (social ostracism), just not by mob rule (laws). So long as it's YOUR mob, you're okay with it. Just don't anyone form or join a mob against YOU, and then it's honorable and moral. Got it.

Re:Things like this... by Guspaz · 2013-07-17 10:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Key point, though, this isn't in the US, and the laws in Canada don't work the same way. Canadians don't necessarily have the exact same values as Americans, and one of those values is that hate speech is criminal rather than protected. These laws (and related ones) are occasionally controversial, but not nearly to the extent they would be in the US.

Re:Mob rule by gandhi_2 · 2013-07-17 10:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

Politicians leading mobs

Eric Holder didn't get that memo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/17/justice-dept-seeks-public-feedback-on-zimmerman-case/?tid=pm_politics_pop

--
THL phish sticks

This all sounds familiar by MrEricSir · 2013-07-17 10:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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."

Re:This all sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 10:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

It is not a snuff film if it was not created with the intent to earn money or at least entertain. If the intent of recording the film does not count towards the definition of a snuff film, then "Faces of Death" would be considered a snuff film since some of the scenes are actual authentic footage of people dying.
Re:This all sounds familiar by Zynder · 2013-07-17 12:47 · Score: 3, Informative

Even CP that is animated is banned just as harshly and you coded it. No one was harmed in that production but it doesn't matter to the ban happy people because it is "the principal" of it.
Re:This all sounds familiar by SethJohnson · 2013-07-17 17:06 · Score: 2

Coincidentally Luka Magnotta had previously been accused of killing kittens on video and posting it to this type of site, if not the same site.

Not responding to the parent post, but I think there is a valid argument that the operator of the site hosting Luka's videos is guilty of collaborating with the killer. He didn't plan the murder, but he is acting as an instrument of Magnotta by delivering the infamy that was Magnotta's goal.

The mature and humane response would have been to say, "Hey Luka. You killed a guy to become infamous. I'm not going to assist you in this goal by publishing this video of the crime you committed to become infamous. I'm going to hand it over to the cops." Instead, this website operator responded by helping Luka to achieve infamy.

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!

Not appropriate?!? by ackthpt · 2013-07-17 10:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Not appropriate?!? by quantaman · 2013-07-17 12:05 · Score: 4, Informative

I don't think the publication ban is relevant here. In practice publication bans only affect the media and don't bother blogs that much, plus the video detailed Magnotta even being identified as the killer.
The site was a really twisted gore website that Magnotta frequented (I recall hearing that he'd freaked out even website members and they'd contacted the police on previous occasions). After Magnotta killed Lin he sent the video to the website of him doing really bad things to the body (I don't think Lin was killed on camera). The operator posted the video and then he (or other site members) contacted the police about the video.

--
I stole this Sig

Re:Things like this... by studog-slashdot · 2013-07-17 11:01 · Score: 2

Actually, hate speech is now protected. The exemption was repealed. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/27/hate-speech-no-longer-part-of-canadas-human-rights-act/

Re:Mob rule by Mashiki · 2013-07-17 11:09 · Score: 3, Informative

Yeah, actually that email address is active and has been for several days. It was even publicized by the DOJ, almost right after the not-guilty verdict was read.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Showing the video is a crime because it is theft by Comrade+Ogilvy · 2013-07-17 11:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Would this be covered under obscenity laws? by sirwired · 2013-07-17 11:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:Things like this... by GumphMaster · 2013-07-17 11:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

what is wrong with you? this would be a clear violation of the site owner's rights of freedom of speech in the US. the site owner didnt commit any crimes, he simply uploaded a video of it to his own site, which is protected under free speech.

So the United States has no laws prohibiting the posting of child porn or bestiality images? After all, the web site operator didn't rape the child, bugger the sheep, etc. he or she is simply exercising "free speech." Nonetheless, he or she is still accountable to the law for disseminating the child porn because it encourages the producers. Posting a murder video might be notionally legal in the US under purported "freedom of speech" but that does not remove the possibility that the law would take interest.

--
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button

Re:Things like this... by bonehead · 2013-07-17 11:55 · Score: 2

What happens when a nutbag joins the NSA?

Um, business as usual?

Not so fast by davidwr · 2013-07-17 12:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Things like this... by Motard · 2013-07-17 12:17 · Score: 2

The freedom of speech right in the US is not an unlimited right. You'll have to read through 200 years of jurisprudence to find the real limitations.

Re:Things like this... by znanue · 2013-07-17 12:26 · Score: 5, Informative

In the case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition the supreme court struck down a provision in a law as unconstitutional that stated that simulated child pornography was illegal. In other words, CGI child porn is definitely considered free speech.

Re:Showing the video is a crime because it is thef by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 12:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

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".

Submitter doesn't know his own rights by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 13:09 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Submitter doesn't know his own rights by dryeo · 2013-07-17 17:19 · Score: 2

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.
Section 1 places some limits on our rights,

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Note that in practice America does the same with their Bill of Rights, which is why child porn is illegal down there.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Submitter doesn't know his own rights by Seq · 2013-07-18 02:00 · Score: 2

However, section 1 does set limits on the rights granted in other sections.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-40

Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
This is why hate speech and obscenity laws are enforceable.

--
-- Seq

Re:Things like this... by BitterOak · 2013-07-17 13:14 · Score: 2

Canadians don't necessarily have the exact same values as Americans, and one of those values is that hate speech is criminal rather than protected.

There's a difference between laws and values. I think many Americans would agree that not all American laws reflect values that all American's hold. Similarly, just because Canada has much less protection for freedom of speech in law doesn't mean that Canadians don't value free speech. I'm Canadian, and myself and virtually every other Canadian that I've talked to on this matter hates Canadian hate speech laws and wishes we had the same protection for freedom of speech as America has. Of course, not all Canadians feel this way, but it is a huge generalization to assume all or most Canadians agree with these laws or that they somehow reflect Canadian "values".

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?

Re:Things like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 13:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

because it encourages the producers

Who cares?

Please start by defining "porn" and "child", and then explain why producing "child porn" is bad, granted that no "children" get abused in the process. If a child is OK with it, why do you bother? Here, I can help you with "child": in US, it's anyone under about 18. So if you possess or share a picture of you and your wife having consensual sex, both of you 17, then you should rot in prison. Right?

Now imagine you are 10. Would you rather get beaten and raped by your older brother (no filming), or have a picture of you touching wieners posted on the Internet (no abuse involved)? This is not even comparable: kids will do the latter just for fun. Or would, if they were not scared by the sheer amount of punishment from the law. At the same time, humans were abusing children sexually since before they could write or draw. Instead of cracking down on people who actually abuse children, you tacitly advocate imprisoning artists and wankers who wouldn't hurt a fly. Instead of allowing people to have an honest discussion about sexual abuse within families (which is the majority of all sexual abuse), you want it censored. All of this tells me that you don't really give a rat's ass about children being abused. All you want is to maintain your puritanical community standard, and if the children get raped not on camera, you are perfectly content. 'Cause if you can't see it, it's not happening, right?

Re:Things like this... by Seumas · 2013-07-17 13:56 · Score: 2

Yes it is. Read the Constitution. "Congress shall make no laws..."

It doesn't say "unless what you say hurts someone's feelings, is super gross, is obscene, isn't accepted by your local community, or is inciting hatred/violence/fear/etc".

It's a pretty dangerous thing to be going around trying to convince people that the freedom of speech has "limitations". Only in its application -- not in its spirit (or writing).

This is how we end up with idiots promoting the idea that "well, free speech is really only intended for journalists - fuck the rest of you".

Re:Things like this... by fustakrakich · 2013-07-17 13:58 · Score: 2

Yeah? Find me any limits written into the document. The only legitimate way to limit speech in the US is to amend the constitution. The process is explicitly written down, in that same constitution.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Mob rule by Seumas · 2013-07-17 13:59 · Score: 2

Yeah, the whole "morality" thing is bullshit. It seems repulsive and horrible and it grosses me out that people would want to see this kind of shit (I'm sure we all stumbled across things like it in the earlier days of the net) . . . but unless it is violating some sort of privacy or something . . . . I just see it as the cost of a free society. (Yes, I know this is in Canada). In a free society, things are said, presented, and done that can be highly offensive to you and that is a good thing.

Re:Things like this... by sjwt · 2013-07-17 14:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

What's worse is it seems the submitter for the post has been brain washed into believing all this 'Land of the free and home of the brave' rubbish.

32nd on the list of free speech for the press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

Sure you still have some of your citizens rights, but it seems you are losing more and more every day, the government now can and will spy on you with out warrant, letting the ppl know about this lands you with ironically charges of being a spy..

--
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?

Re:Things like this... by Vhann · 2013-07-17 16:11 · Score: 2

> If a child is OK with it, why do you bother?

The rhetoric is that a child is not legally able to give consent, so all sex with a child is legally rape.
A line had to be drawn somewhere, be it 16, 18 or 21 or whatever else in your country.

As for hypothetical situations where two children have sex, you take naked pictures of yourself as a child and circulate them as an adult, etc. I do not know. I suppose it would have to be tried in court.

Re: Things like this... by statusbar · 2013-07-17 16:34 · Score: 2

Pardon my ignorance but.... Isn't there a law against Snowden exercising his free speech rights to disclose what he learned about the NSA?

--
ipv6 is my vpn

Re:Canada by hawkinspeter · 2013-07-17 20:10 · Score: 2

What's the point of rhetorical questions?

--
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe

Re:Severed limbs mailed to political parties? by Mr+Foobar · 2013-07-17 23:59 · Score: 2

I never really understood this in the movie. No blood on the ground...

Guess you never read the book, then. Coppola had to leave a lot out from the book, including how this scene got set up. Coppola had to leave so much out, he left enough material for the sequel.
Want to know why Woltz was so pissed at Hayden at the dinner?
Want to know happened to Sonny's goomah after his death?
More about Johnny Fontane's career (and why Sinatra tried to stop the movie's production)?
About the doctor who played a very significant part in the book, left completely out in the movie?
How Michael found out about Vitelli (who bombed the car)?
Why Michael fell for Apollonia so hard? And then why he rekindled a relationship with Kay?
Where Neri came from, why he was tied to Michael?
Why Don Tommasino was so big a part of the Godfather's life, and why the Godfather was so bothered by Luca Brasi?
All that and more...

It's all in the book.

--
-> I dislike sigs...

Re:Things like this... by kilfarsnar · 2013-07-18 02:03 · Score: 2

Murder as free speech. America really has something funny in its water supply.

Electrolytes!

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)

Slashdot Mirror

Gore Site Operator Arrested For Posting Video of Murder

54 of 289 comments (clear)