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."

Comments

Summay is incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[FrankSchwab]

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 torment of her family and loved ones?

[bstarrfield]

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.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones?

[Qzukk]

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.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones?

[Zynder]

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:Things like this...

[Guspaz]

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.

This all sounds familiar

[MrEricSir]

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?

Not appropriate?!?

[ackthpt]

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.

Re:Not appropriate?!?

[quantaman]

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.

Re:Things like this...

[GumphMaster]

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.

Not so fast

[davidwr]

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.

Re:Things like this...

[znanue]

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.

Submitter doesn't know his own rights

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Things like this...

[sjwt]

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..