Facebook Lets Beheading Clips Return To Its Site

another random user sends this quote from the BBC: "Facebook is allowing videos showing people being decapitated to be posted and shared on its site once again. The social network had placed a temporary ban on the material in May following complaints that the clips could cause long-term psychological damage. The U.S. firm now believes its users should be free to watch and condemn, but not celebrate, such videos. One suicide prevention charity criticized the move. 'It only takes seconds of exposure to such graphic material to leave a permanent trace — particularly in a young person's mind,' said Dr. Arthur Cassidy, a former psychologist who runs a branch of the Yellow Ribbon Program in Northern Ireland. 'The more graphic and colorful the material is, the more psychologically destructive it becomes.' Decapitation videos are available elsewhere on the net — including on Google's YouTube — but critics have raised concern that Facebook's news feeds and other sharing functions mean it is particularly adept at spreading such material."

Comments

No boobies though.

[MightyYar]

Thank God, because that would be obscene!

Re:No boobies though.

[couchslug]

I can't wait for easy, lifelike CGI so we can post Wholesome Biblical Anecdotes to Facebook.

Let's see how parents try to censor these:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html

Re:No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Suck a boob, you're an X. Cut it off, you're an R" -- Jack Nicholson on US-Movie-Ratings...

Re:No boobies though.

[LoRdTAW]

It is ironic as a pair of tits, hell a dude ramming another guy/girl up the ass like its the end of the world is FAR less traumatizing than a decapitation video. If someone said you child has to watch 10 hours of porn or one brutal decapitation video id let the kid watch the porn.

Re:No boobies though.

[tverbeek]

Boobies, dicks, and drawings of imaginary naked people will still get deleted, and the posters put in detention. Photographs that depict actual violent murders are OK, though?

Re:No boobies though.

[Opportunist]

Yes, you haven't watched a lot of US TV lately, have you?

Quite frankly, if the average action movie would have to come with the same kind of "action" that the average romance movie has to do with, people would run around pointing their index fingers at each other while screaming "bang bang!"

Re: No boobies though.

[Anonymous Coward]

> not in my case---my parents cut off my foreskin and covered my eyes during r-rated movies

You were circumcised during an R-rated movie???

Re:No boobies though.

[Aighearach]

*pew*pew*pew*pew*pew*

Re:No boobies though.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Photographs that depict actual violent murders are OK, though?

Are you trying to train a population to sit around all day and boink or send their children off to die in skirmishes to satisfy some politicians' power lust?

Re:No boobies though.

[Bite The Pillow]

So far, this post is the only source for this quote. here is a great place to start for when you want to use it again, correctly.

Your version loses the essential Jack, but of course the original is not available.

"If you suck on a tit, the movie gets an X rating," he once told an interviewer.

"If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG."

I prefer :

"Shoot, shoot, bang, bang, kill, kill, is fine. But show seven sets of genitals, everyone go crazy!" -Francesca Fiore

Re:No boobies though.

[YttriumOxide]

No, one must simply not conflate the religion of the perpetrators with the act, as if they are one and the same thing.

I agree that one should not conflate the religion of the perpetrators with the act; however it is an important point to make if the act was performed in the name of the religion (regardless of what the majority of believers think).

If a Christian man kills someone because he was pissed off at work, bringing his religion in to the discussion is irrelevant. If however a Christian man kills someone because "God told him to", then bringing his religion in to the discussion is very relevant.

It would be wrong to say that "Christianity promotes killing" (based on this event alone), however it would NOT be wrong to say that "Christianity can be used as an excuse or reason to kill", because it quite clearly was so.

There are a lot of people that are anti-Islam because of the acts of a number of Islamic extremists. The religion itself (from my atheist perspective) is about equally as dangerous and violent as Christianity. There certainly are people that use it to justify violence towards others and there is a strong community ethic bound to the religion that brings other people in to commit the same acts when they previously might not have.

Christianity is currently going through a 'reasonably quiet' period as far as violence goes (although definitely not completely quiet) but history (even relatively recent history) shows that it's not always so. There's nothing inherent in Islam that makes it any better or worse.

Re:No boobies though.

[dintech]

Just because you're free to say something doesn't mean other people have to like it.

Re:No boobies though.

[martin-boundary]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather see Saddam being beheaded, than seeing Saddam's boobies :/

Re: No boobies though.

[MysteriousPreacher]

And the bible doesn't contain similar statements?

When the IRA commits some acts of terror, I don't see people blame the Catholic Church as a whole.

So yeah, Islam is treated differently. And that's wrong.

Disclaimer: I'm Catholic.

I agree that Islam shouldn't automatically be blamed whenever a Muslim commits a crime. However, when an Islamist group cites Islamic texts as justification then I don't see how one could not make the connection. It's not wrong to draw valid connections between world-views and actions.

It's worth considering differences in how scripture is read. Most Christian sects have spent thousands of years arguing over canon and apocrypha. Today there are major sects using different canons - this is not a fringe exercise. Even within a given canon it's rare to have the literalism and inerrancy common to Islam. Based on discussions with Muslims, the general idea is that there is one Koran, and it is free from error and practically untouched by human hand. This leads to a pretty hardline and self-claimed definitive interpretation, which I reflects in the practices of the religion. There are some exceptions, such as the Sufis, who are are more likely to read allegories where others would see literality.

Re:No boobies though.

[fatphil]

I had an easy-going moderate muslim workmate, fairly intelligent, and a hard worker who had the project's best interests in mind at all times. Well, I say moderate, as he appeared that way until the topic of religion came up in conversation one day, which was an interesting discussion until he basically interrupted me and said "don't end that sentence or I will have to kill you", and I could tell from the look on his face that he was serious.

Whackjobbery abounds.

Any religion which encourages its followers to murder people simply for expressing opposing opinions *is* worse than any religion that doesn't do that. So I think you're wrong - there is something inherent in 21st century Islam that makes it worse than many other 21st century religions.

Re:No boobies though.

[hazah]

For the most part I agree, however, a nit pick I have with your line of thinking is that there's some arbitrary distinction between islam and islamist extremeism. True islam demands extreemeism from its subjects. It is perscribed. Western notion of moderation do not really apply. It resolves to violence as its M. O. I would concider it to be both anti-civilized and far more dangerous than either Christianity (Invented to passify an overly diverse citystate) and Judaism (Surviving oral traditions of an ancient egyptian cult of sun worshipers).

Re:No boobies though.

[hazah]

While they may identify themselves as muslim, muslims would identify them as infadels. There's really not much grey area here. It could be that they are ignorant of what is demanded of them, but then they are not representatives of islam to begin with. This is a warrior culture from beginning to end, and lends itself very poorly to comarisons with Christianity. The norse mythologies offer far better insights into the mentality of islamic intoctrination.

Better That Than Tits

[rueger]

Does Facebook still ban breastfeeding pictures? Just wondering.....

Yup.

FB page Bitchin' Parents is the latest to be targeted by FB censors for sharing their members breastfeeding images. As a result they have been asking members to share their BF images here instead. Incredibly sad this is still an issue on FB. http://www.facebook.com/ParentsUncut

Re:Better That Than Tits

[jonr]

That makes no sense, we frown upon be-headings too... or what?

Re:Better That Than Tits

[Richy_T]

As a society, we

It's a big world.

Priorities

[wiredlogic]

Thank god there won't be any breastfeeding moms to corrupt the mind when one is looking for snuff pictures.

Re:Priorities

[Opportunist]

Boobies ain't for little kids!

This is not about free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

If I walk into just about any decent sized store or public building (large enough to have security) and start shouting political slogans, I'll be escorted out of the building. Facebook and Google own their premises and can and should enforce whatever policies they think is appropriate, above and beyond what the law requires.

It's common sense that videos glorifying machete violence against humans should be banned. If that doesn't occur to Zuckerberg and Page immediately, they are thinking way too hard.

All for Cash

[TranquilVoid]

From the company that removes photos of breastfeeding mothers...

To be 'fair' I've noticed that, since they went public, they've been a lot more permissive with the soft porn pages. You probably still can't show nipples, but labia outlines through a bikini are apparently fine. It's all a short-term grab for eyeballs and advertising dollars.

As far as I know Facebook doesn't have an 18+ category like YouTube so this move does a bit blunt.

scarred for life, eh?

[rubycodez]

killing innocents by drones and dumping ordinance, also scarring relatives, friends, neighbors, rescuers minds: good. posting video of beheading: bad posting video of breastfeeding, sex, or just being naked: bad

ok, got it.

Facebook should stop banning anything.

[pauljlucas]

Facebook should get out of the censorship/banning business. You should only be able to report things that are against the law, e.g., child pornography. If you don't like anything else, don't look.

If it's on a page you've "liked," unlike the page and stop following it. If a friend posts something you don't like, either learn to accept your friend is his or her entirety, or simply unfollow or unfriend your friend. Facebook shouldn't be your nanny.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[foobar bazbot]

Facebook should get out of the censorship/banning business. You should only be able to report things that are against the law, e.g., child pornography.

Devil's advocate:
I'd rather not have Facebook telling people "We only remove illegal content; if you don't wanna see beheading videos, take it up with your Congressman.", because it's all too believable that some congressclown would take up the challenge, and push through legislation making such content illegal.

The rest of the internet is clearly better off if prominent sites such as Facebook engage in censorship, because this reduces the number of idiots getting riled about it and therefore the odds that the government applies censorship to the whole internet. Now whether this benefit to the rest of the internet is worth the harm of having Facebook censored is ... debatable, at best, but there is a not-absurd argument there.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[__aaltlg1547]

1. Facebook has to obey local laws in jurisdictions where it operates, thus, no kiddy porn or [em]animal[/em] cruelty in the USA.

2. Facebook is an advertising company. If their sponsors don't like it, it's verboten.

3. Facebook sponsors apparently like snuff films, but not sex.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[artor3]

Facebook should be in the business business. If they can make more money by making the site more family friendly, at the cost of kicking out some of the dregs of 4chan, they should do so. Hell, they have an obligation to their shareholders to do so.

Free speech means the government doesn't control what you say. It doesn't mean that everyone has to let you post pornography on their property.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[pauljlucas]

Facebook should be in the business business. If they can make more money by making the site more family friendly, at the cost of kicking out some of the dregs of 4chan, they should do so. Hell, they have an obligation to their shareholders to do so.

They can accomplish the same thing by allowing people to self-tag posts as "adult." (Or they could even have several tags such as "violence", "sex", etc.) Minors wouldn't be able to see such content (based on what tags their parents allow them to see). At worst, adult content that's not self-tagged as such would simply be tagged as such by Facebook if/when they're alerted to it. Adults who've chosen not to filter their content will get to see everything. It's a win-win and it's certainly better than outright banning.

Re:Facebook should stop banning anything.

[sI4shd0rk]

Of course, I think that a world without censorship would be better off, but since I have no proof I'm no better than those who call for censorship.

I believe that is incorrect. The ones who impose censorship are infringing upon others' freedoms, and without evidence. Since opposing censorship simply means not infringing upon people's right to free speech (a fundamental right), I believe you to be far better than cretins who call for censorship.

In fact, even if the world is a better place with censorship, freedom is speech is far more important than safety, so censorship shouldn't be allowed either way.

Not for facebook

[jblues]

There are plenty of other places people can see these videos. I don't think it should be on Facebook.

More "graphic material" needed?

[iamhigh]

Sometimes I wonder if the lack of "graphic material" has caused a dissonance from death. As a young kid my father killed pigs so they could eat (or at least watched it). He saw them get sick and die. Several family members died unexpectedly in his youth. He had real life experience with death.

Granted, I never did any of that as I didn't grow up on a farm, nor did I experience unexpected family deaths, and I came out pretty normal. Maybe it takes two generations. Even those in richer families 100 years ago were much more exposed to death than the average kid is now.

One of you psych grads now working in IT, does that make any sense?

Re:More "graphic material" needed?

[beckett]

Sometimes I wonder if the lack of "graphic material" has caused a dissonance from death. As a young kid my father killed pigs so they could eat (or at least watched it). He saw them get sick and die. Several family members died unexpectedly in his youth. He had real life experience with death.

I'd like to see something similar for war: show death instead of glamour. Instead of showing shiny war machines, guns, and bombs via "embedded reporters", report from a hospital emergency ward and show the effect and damage of the war machines, guns, and bombs. Instead of interviewing specially-selected soldiers and operators to propagandise the war effort, have an "embeded doctor" talk about the difficulties involved in blast injuries or treating pediatric bullet trauma.

If we were forced to see the death, injury and destruction, I wonder if we would be so complacent about the bloody conflicts the world is currently mired in.

Re:More "graphic material" needed?

[couchslug]

I'd suggest it does. My father's generation fought WWII and many of them grew up on farms which meant killing your own dinner.

They by and large didn't turn into sadists. Death was understood not to be glamorous.

About the worst thing to be shared online

[Haoie]

Just imagine this posted on your timeline:

"Hey dude, I just saw this guy get his head lopped off and I totally thought of you!"

But think of the children!

[dkleinsc]

I'm against all censorship. Period. Including of things that are horrific.

It's not like you can really shield people completely from the horrific violence of the world. In some places, the kids not only see it, but they're forced to be a part of it as child soldiers. In other places, kids aren't supposed to see it, but are encouraged to enjoy a fantasy version of that horrific violence so that they'll grow up into 18-year-olds who want to join the military service and kill people. In lots of places, even the kids who aren't supposed to go into the service (typically because their parents are rich enough) get exposed to horrific violence via something called "evening news". At best, you can try to create a fantasy bubble in which the bad stuff only happens in places very far away from where you are - this usually involves willfully ignoring the assaults, murders, robberies, rapes, car crashes, etc that are probably happening fairly close to you right now.

Also, the reaction of children to real violence is the same as adults: horror. They might enjoy a good scare in October at a haunted house or a murder mystery story, but the real thing leaves kids (and lots of adults) crying, screaming in fear, defacating, vomiting, etc. If you want a sure way to get kids to not want to behead themselves or anyone else, showing them a real beheading is a pretty good way of doing it.

Re:But think of the children!

[scott9693]

Serious question, are you a father?

Are you suggesting I should show my 5 year old son a beheading video? I love my son and want to protect him from harm, both physical and psychological. When he is old enough, and curious enough to view these things he will in his own time.
Suggesting that because other children experience this is it ok for mine to see it is not a good reason. Why do you think violence transcends generations?

Re:But think of the children!

[artor3]

In some places, the kids not only see [horrific violence], but they're forced to be a part of it as child soldiers.

So... what? Since pedophiles exist we should force all children to watch child pornography?

Just-World thinking contributes to mental health. Forcing people to see all the morbid shit that goes on just depresses them. There is no upside. Just spreading misery. It's not like we could fix the armies of child soldiers just by getting a bit more awareness *coughkony2012cough*.

If you want a sure way to get kids to not want to behead themselves or anyone else, showing them a real beheading is a pretty good way of doing it.

You have absolutely no evidence of that. In fact, you have evidence against it: the child soldiers you referenced. They witness lots of horror. It doesn't stop them from participating. If anything, it desensitizes them.

Re:But think of the children!

[phantomfive]

If you want a sure way to get kids to not want to behead themselves or anyone else, showing them a real beheading is a pretty good way of doing it.

That's the most hilarious idea I've seen all day. Where did he get the data to support that assertion? It's probably not even anecdotal, how many kids does he know who want to go around beheading themselves? It's just a wild crazy guess. I agree with your comment.

Re:But think of the children!

[dkleinsc]

Are you suggesting I should show my 5 year old son a beheading video?

No, I'm suggesting that your 5-year-old seeing it, probably by accident, will almost definitely not encourage him to behead someone (or himself). I'm not a father, but I've taken care of lots of kids before, and one of the things I've learned to do is not shelter kids too much, because kids who are overly sheltered have a harder time dealing with the bad stuff in life once they're 25.

Re:But think of the children!

[mythix]

It is forbidden for 5 year olds to have a facebook account. So you are already teaching your kids to disobey the rules?

THey have recently lowered the age to 12+, but if they want to include such content, it should be pulled up to 18+ again.

Re:Why?

[LoRdTAW]

Good question. The other night an old coworker I was friends with posted one of those decapitation videos. I have never seen anything more disturbing in my life. A masked thug (presumably a mexican cartel goon) cuts a womans head off ...... with a fucking box cutter or small knife. No quick chop and lights out. No this was a brutal murder in which this guy starts slicing around her neck like she was a side of beef until her head comes off. And she was fully conscious and alive when he started.

Why did I watch it? I honestly have no idea. Morbid curiosity perhaps? At first I thought it was fake thinking why would someone post something this fucking horrible on FB. I am sorry I did. Damn video has been haunting me for the past few days. Nothing bad but I keep thinking of it every now and then, that poor woman.

One this it does illustrate though is how the wonderful war on drugs has given those shit stains on the underwear of humanity the ability to do this almost entirely unchecked.

Re:Why?

[BenJeremy]

Except in this case, it is an Islamist who beheaded his wife for "cheating" on him. ...AND it managed to get 2500 likes on Facebook. Way to go , Facebook, that sure looks like condemnation.

I guess restricting beheading videos would be considered racist.

Meanwhile, posting pictures of a girl's head and elbows while she's in a bath, suggesting (only to the lame Facebook censors who have never seen an actual naked woman) boobies will get you banned.

Only (based) In America

[hyades1]

So death porn is fine, but if you try to post a picture of a woman breastfeeding, they'll crap-can it and threaten to close your account faster than a businessman can pick a pocket.

Must be American.

Re:Only (based) In America

[OhANameWhatName]

So death porn is fine, but if you try to post a picture of a woman breastfeeding, they'll crap-can it and threaten to close your account faster than a businessman can pick a pocket.

What if it was a video of a breast feeding woman having her head cut off? That would be a real tizzy.

Article: Facebook Lets Beheading Clips Return...

[klingers48]

...More on this below the cut.

Re:Why?

[LoRdTAW]

Im not the squeamish type either but watching a person who has done nothing wrong cut up like a piece of meat is beyond fucked. The disturbing part isnt the blood or the head coming off but the fact that someone is so apathetic that they can butcher someone and not think twice. Especially if that someone has done no harm to anyone else. Those guys make serial killers like dahmer, bundy and gacy look like mouseketeers. At least they had a drive and motivation. These guys are doing it as if its nothing, just another day on the job.

Apocalypse Now:

[Hartree]

Colonel Kurtz: "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene."

Human psychology is all kinds of weird.

Re:BDSM plz plz .....

[__aaltlg1547]

Nope, that's banned apparently because (a) the behavior is consensual and (b) nobody dies.

Re:Why?

[artor3]

It's the modern goatse. Some people get perverse pleasure in forcing other people to witness terrible things against their will. Some of their victims later decide to show how tough and unfazed they are by trying to find something even worse to post.

This isn't a free speech issue. Facebook isn't the government. They were wrong to change this policy -- it's making the site friendly to mentally ill trolls, and worse for everyone else. Even from a strictly amoral, financial viewpoint, it's a bad decision.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I'd categorize the people executed by the cartels as innocents. If the bonds were on the other set of hands, they'd be just as happy to wield the knife.

Except for, you know, the journalists who are targetet, executed, and their corpses put on public display because they dared to report on these wastes of flesh.

Re:The way I see it is this...

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that your kids are your kids even when they reach adulthood. So does your statement still stand throughout time? If so, why did you have kids if you are so intent of erasing your genes from the gene pool?

Seriously, if you think your kids are going to be teenage parents from seeing some nudity, I can tell you that don't know jack shit. Just as much as you shouldn't believe your kid are to become a serial killer just from seeing a beheading video. But the emotional scarring most kids would get from seeing a beheading video is very real. I dare say most adults would be distrubed from watching something like that. Any emotional scarring they get from watching some non-hardcore nudity is most likely to come from their hypocritical parents, trying to deny the existence of nudity or sex in the misdirected interest to "shield" their kids. (Hint to any kids reading this: How do you think you came into this world? "The stork" is the wrong answer.)

Attitude police

[OhANameWhatName]

its users should be free to watch and condemn, but not celebrate, such videos

So the opinion of the people watching the video is relevant to the content? Should I ask Facebook if making this comment is appropriate or not?

Honeypot?

[GumphMaster]

So, you post a link to one of these less than savoury videos... how long before the NSA tap has sucked out your details, processed it, pulled out every other post or utterance you ever made, connected you to organized crime however tenuously, and notified the FBI? Anal probe in 5 4 3 ...

Re:Why?

[dryeo]

Are thought to be members of rival gangs. I doubt they go worry about evidence.
Then there are the people who are just in the way, journalists, cops and even politicians.

Re:Why?

[Xest]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but let's be honest, this is no more sick than half the stuff on hostel which all looks pretty real with modern effects.

I think it's a wider societal problem. I never understood how something like Hostel or the Human Centipede are allowed to be shown and there seems to be very little uproar, but you're allowed to shoot people in CoD's almost cartoonish graphical environment and it's "OMG THIS IS GOING TO DESTROY OUR CHILDREN".

Re:Why?

[chihowa]

Dignity is an imaginary concept and there is nobody keeping tally of it. The people in the videos aren't "people with rights and human dignity" because they're dead. "We can't know for sure her feelings on the subject", because she doesn't have any feelings because she has been murdered. Keeping her brutal murder a secret "to preserve her dignity" only empowers her killers. Crimes like this need to be in the public eye, in all of their gory horror so that we can't sit back and ignore them. We should be more worried about the human rights of actual living humans than the "dignity" of the dead.

Her cause will be better served by actual exposure and people being aware of what happened to her. A video like that will impart far more impact on people than a news headline would, even if there was a news headline (which there apparently wasn't). Censoring "affronts to human dignity" is just a euphemism for sweeping distasteful realities under the rug. It doesn't make the world a nice place; it just makes it easier for people to feel ok about not doing anything to make it better.

Re:Dear Facebook

[rsborg]

You're completely and utterly wrong on this one.

Just remove the last two words and you're still correct.