Slashdot Mirror
An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos
A few days ago, we posted a story that asked whether posting horrific videos online served a legitimate journalistic purpose; some images that are shocking in their violence are now routinely available, including and especially the recent video of Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kaseasbeh being burned alive. Matthew Ingram writes at GigaOm that, whatever you think of the motives or results of the traditional news media showing such videos or choosing not to, there's good reason for social media sites not to reflexively remove such content.
An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos
Freedom of speech.
There done. Issue solved. Next?
Somewhere, hopefully in Nirvana, a self-immolating monks nods in approval.
What a poorly thought out argument. The article essentially says free speech is one of the reasons, despite snuff films not even being remotely protected speech, while "being informed" is the other, despite the ability to be informed without actually watching the propaganda snuff. It read like a reactionary blog post by some rando with "an opinion". Good thing Slashdot is here to "present the other side"
Why don't we see those videos or images?
I'm not entirely against showing these type of images or media, but I am absolutely of the mind that the publisher must censor the individual's identification - such as not presenting their name, blurring face or other identifying features, in any sort of media. Media would most definitely (in accordance with the law..) censor it's own citizens being murdered without approval from the deceased's family or next of kin, why should that common sense respect not apply to foreigners?
That being said, Fox didn't publish this video for any "journalistic integrity" or whatever nonsense reason they claimed - but for clickbait/viewer trash to bump their numbers. I, for one, haven't seen the video - and don't plan on seeing it, and Fuck Fox News for using journalistic integrity as a means of justifying something like this.
The key question is why do governments want them down so badly?
The government so desperately wants these videos down and routinely makes claims that these videos are radicalizing people (not proven but still doesn't change anything). But this doesn't make sense. The videos don't really cost money. They aren't going against some vested interest of a lobby group. So why are they so desperate?
The answer is clear. They make the bureaucrats look bad. How can they claim that any given battle has been won or an area "pacified" if videos crop up showing their opponents doing what they want where they want? Bush jr claimed that the war was over but very quickly both the media and the internet proved him very very wrong. But if he had complete control over the information we might have only been able to speculate as to why so many soldiers were dying in "accidents". Instead he was humiliated and his legacy largely ruined.
And this is the crux of real power; the control of information. Look at the power that Snowden has managed to take away. Not all of it but even in the UK the courts have just delivered a gut punch that mightn't ever have happened without his release of the information and caused such potential for a power shift.
So while I don't really want more power to groups like ISIS. I am 100% sure that I don't want more power in the hands of the US or any other western government. So ignore any argument that they might make about keeping the children safe and remember that this is a quest for power over information pure and simple.
More sex, less violence please.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
As bad as these videos are, censorship is a vastly greater evil. Who decides what is censored and what is not? Who appoints the censors? This is a problem which even the Romans wrestled with.
Don't think censorship is bad? if your are:
You all get the picture. Censorship is bad. In the formerly-Free West we understood that censorship was worse than most bad speech. But now there are very, very many who believe so fervently in their cause that they are willing to silence all dissenting voices - this is a great regression in the World (but unfortunately, even Slashdotters ardently apply censorship through their mod points [not modding up posts they like, but deliberately trying to silence posts they don't agree with]).
The true solution to Bad Speech is *more speech*. This is what Free Speech is all about - let ideas compete in the open arena of public discourse - no matter how offensive and uncomfortable for those with political, religious or financial power.
Only authoritarians or totalitarians which to censor the speech of others:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often misattributed to Voltaire)
This is the principle that should reign - and the US 1st Amendment to the Constitution is brilliant in allowing Free Speech to flourish. Too bad the powers in the US, EU and UN (eg. the disgusting UN HRC 16/18) are working to destroy Free Speech criticism of the powerful - and ensuring that you don't get a vote or say in the matter.
There is no substitute for Liberty!
If the videos are taken down and no one can see them, people can't check if they are fake or not.
A lot of news media sites seem to refer to a movie 'which appears to show' someone being burned alive, as if theres some question about it. If the video is available then those with the expertise, and stomach, can verify whether it is genuine or if its a hoax and the flames are CG. Keep it hidden away forever and its authenticity might be challenged.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
I find it amusing how whenever the topic of free speech comes up here, or at Hacker News, or even at Reddit, many of the comments will be supportive of free speech, and against censorship. Yet when it comes to how such sites actually operate, we see the complete opposite. We see lots of censorship, and the active suppression of free speech.
Granted, Slashdot isn't as bad as some sites. At least we can post as AC here, we generally don't see users banned completely (although there are apparently posting restrictions can be put in place), and we can optionally see all comments. But it's still quite distasteful to see so many good comments get modded down to -1 so often. Modding like that is a form of censorship, and it should have no place here.
HN and Reddit are particularly bad. HN has its vague, extrajudicial "hellbanning", for example. Both sites suffer from an extreme self-righteousness complex, where members there are absolutely sure they're right, and will go so far as to silence anyone who disagrees with them. If you're lucky, they'll only accuse you of being "disingenuous" or "snarky". But most likely anyone who doesn't completely follow the flock will be abusively downvoted, if not banned.
So I think it's quite sad when people here and at those other sites talk about how important free expression is, and how bad censorship is, yet they actively support such things when they go on at the sites that they frequent.
Anything else sugar-coats the truth. You can't have real progress in anything without knowing the truth. As the old saying goes, know the truth and the truth shall set you free.
A photo of the incineration of the Jordanian pilot, with the legend
"Waterboarding no longer bothers me."
Warning: Graphic Photo, and general political incorrectness
http://www.theospark.net/2015/...
So you want to present only a sanitized version of the truth? Like China suppresses photos of the monks of Tibet that pour petrol over themselves and burn themselves alive?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=monk+burn+alive+tibet&iax=1&ia=images
Or perhaps we can block the little Vietnamese girl burned from the Napalm?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc#mediaviewer/File:Vietnam_Kim_Ph%C3%BAc.jpg
Do you want people to see the world for what it is or for what YOU want to show it like? ISIS burned a man, we in turn will burn them, at some point a balance of dead burned people will be reached. For that to happen we need to see the unpleasant truth.
Depending on how you count, somewhere on the order of 20,000 children die from poverty every day. I imagine that in most cases their deaths are quite unpleasant - that a video that showed the final moments of any one of these children as they died would be quite disturbing
But in the case of deaths due to poverty it's harder to assign "responsibility". If you're out on a deserted road and happen across a hit-and-run victim but you continue on an leave him to die of his injuries, many people would argue that you were at least partially responsible for his death. But what if it's a busy street and any one of a number of bystanders could help the guy? What if everyone just assumes that someone else will step up and help the guy but then no one does and the guy dies - who is responsible? Or what if a democracy wages a war of aggression on another country and hundreds of thousands of people in that country are killed as a result of the invasion - and the vast majority of those killed die in very unpleasant ways - that would be very disturbing to watch on video?
I'm not opposed to videos that remind people that there's a lot of bad stuff happening in the world, per se. But I'm a bit ambivalent when there's a focus on a small number of videos that are used by one broad group of people to claim moral superiority over another broad group of people - and then use that moral superiority to justify acts of violence against the other group - particularly when that group has natural resources that the "morally superior" groups wants access to.
Honestly, if I had to choose between those videos being removed or not, I'd choose the former. It's disgusting and only giving an incentive for the crazies out there to do the same in order to become "famous".
I was appalled without having to see it. Visual media was not needed. The fact that we lie in a society that seems to need to have it's shock porn is disturbing. And it wasn't censored, privately held media/news companies decided not to show it.
While I've never passed out at the sight of blood or gore I've come really close. I almost passed out in high school on a medical video of first aid on someone who got a fish hook stuck through their finger. And I've had other close calls.
I watch horrific videos as a way to desensitize myself. I don't want to be that useless person who passes out at the first sign of injury. I know first aid and I'd like to stay conscious long enough to apply that knowledge. Watching gore filled videos has been somewhat helpful. Though passing out can be useful. It's hard to torture someone if they keep passing out on you. Well, at least for the bloody types of torture.
Western media didnt want you to see the full video, because it shows the bombing and innocent victims of the jordanian pilot, half burnt and covered in rubbles. What ISIS did is a recreation of the same horror: they burnt the pilot, threw rubbles on top of him and smashed the metal cage with a bulldozer. He ends up looking exactly like another victim. Watching the full video makes you think about what western and arab countries are doing in syria.
It's all about effect. ISIS chose that expecting their enemies to fear them, and thus leave them alone. Yet it just hardens opinions against them, Jordan's leaders know that today it is a Jordanian pilot, tomorrow it will be them, so that will bring Jordan hardened firmly against ISIS.
Likewise Fox wants to harden anti ISIS views, which is why they showed the video. In a way, ISIS and Fox have a sort of weird synergy.
Fox won't show poor children in the third world dying a horrible death because Fox has a "money for rich/ not food for poor" agenda. Hence no synergy there. It does the Ebola thing, but that's only to scare Americans about foreign places and black people.
I have to say I don't like Fox but I'll defend their right to show the video. The world is made of lots and lots of people with agendas and its the competition of those agendas that leads us forward. If you permit one group to censor the rest, then you are saying that that group alone has the unique perspective on truth.
"freedom of speech only applies to government actions."
The Constitution (and its ammenments) apply to government actions, "freedom of speech" is a more general thing.
But I do agree that a website can set its own rules, if news or social media sites don't want to have people post porn, violence or racist shit they don't have to accept everything that is uploaded. And if some islamic terror group wants to host their own blogs showing what they do to non-believers then they'll just have to put up with anti-islamic sites hosted elsewhere poking fun at their religion and their Prophet.
There are sites that will leave the content up. liveleak.com comes to mind. It just happens that the ever popular youtube isn't one of them. Vote with your mouse clicks if you take issue with it.
there has to be a standard of censorship or at least notify people what type of videos they are. what of videos that discriminate against other groups of people. or hate speech. i believe that freedom should not remove the freedom of others
As someone who has managed to avoid watching the video of the Jordanian pilot being intentionally burned to death, I thought I would share my approach, which didn't involve removing it from the internet. I did not click, and I don't watch Fox News. Actually, I don't watch any mainstream TV news; I listen to the radio and read online sites run by newspapers (the Guardian, mainly) and other organizations (Pro Publica).
This has saved me enormous amounts of time, and spared me from having to tut-tut when TV newsreaders working for General Electric, Westinghouse, or other large successful corporations turn out to be liars and frauds. It also prevents me from having nightmares from watching people being bombed by governments, burned to death by other terrorists, and yet I still feel relatively informed about just how disastrous 21st century capitalist fraud has been for humanity.
Freedom of speech.
There done. Issue solved. Next?
Not so fast.
Shouting out "Freedom of speech!" to abort all thought and argument about the meaning and limits of free speech is the oldest and most subtle enemy of free speech.
If this article is supposed to be an argument for publishing it is unconvincing. Note I am not saying that publishing is wrong, just that this would lose at debate club.
Why? He has duty to be informed backwards. We hardly need to be more informed about the horrors perpetrated by ISIS. Our networks have no problem publishing that stuff 24 hours a day. If we were talking the duty to be informed seriously we need to be informed about the horrors WE are perpetrating, but FOX certainly isn't interested in that.
Take the examples given in the fine article: A burning Jordianian pilot; A burning little girl; Dead American soldiers. You see how one of these things is not like the others? Only one of them was deliberately produced and then cynically appropriated for pro-war purposes.
There ARE good arguments for showing the video, but need to be informed is bogus. Lets stick with free speech, huh?.After all that (fairly embarrassing) #JeSuisCharlie onanism we can't turn around and silence the voices of our enemies without revealing ourselves as self-righteous hypocrites.
.....but the freaking out over one Jordanian pilot takes the cake. If you don't remember the phosphorous dumped on Fallujah, how about the tons of napalm dropped over Vietnam?
we need laws to protect our freedoms so even freedom has its limits. there needs to be a standard of censorship especially from videos of discrimination
let people watch the horrific execution videos, so they stop saying shit like "let's negotiate with them."
Regardless facts and the truth trump the need to protect the fainting goats of the human species from their tendency to swoon.
Watching this stuff, which I do all the time, desensitizes.
What I want now is to see 1,000s of videos of the ISIS zombies having their heads cut off, or burned alive, or beaten to death. Preferably rip out their tongues with pliers first to improve the audio quality.
Can I have that? Don't bomb too much. Just stop arming them and things will play out. Soon, the Iraqi Army will be in Mosul and it will be a real bloodbath. Justice to be available for viewing on youtube and LL.
"A censor is someone who knows more than he thinks you should." -- (Don't remember, and probably misquoted).
Be that as it may, watching these videos can be damaging to one's mental health. That is no excuse for censoring them, but it should give normal people pause before watching them.
Charlie Booker had a good analysis on why you're wrong. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Being free citizens isn't supposed to be comfortable. It involves hard choices about serious issues. To pre-filter the information provided to citizens based on what *you* think they can handle is as patronizing as it is misguided.
As Twain once said something like, "censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it."
Is it unpleasant? Yes. If you can't bear to watch it, don't watch it. But understand that it will take people who are willing to see it for what it is to really understand how hard we need to fight this.
-Styopa
Sorry to burst your tea party bubble, but freedom of speech only applies to government actions.
No, the First Amendment only applies to government actions. It may be hard for you to believe, but some of us find virtue in protecting freedom of speech even in cases where the law would let you get away with suppressing it.
Dunno why you'd bring up the tea party or twitter, but it is interesting that this story and last week's twitter story both neglected to use the censorship icon.
BTW if anyone is interested in the contents of the video but doesn't want to watch it, Qbertino provided a detailed.summary in the last story about it:
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
We are at war with the ISIS. Their weapon is this kind of imagery. Delivering this imagery is to deliver their weapon's payload. If we don't deliver their payload we deneigh them this weapon. It is enough to say that they burned this man alive.
ie, allow people to see them if they seek them out, but never auto-play them (!!) and never show them unsolicited.
barely mention it on the news and only provide a link to where to get the video, and with suitable warnings.
that seems to be a reasonable compromise between giving the bad guys an easy outlet for their sick deeds - vs allowing freedom of speech. suppressing them entirely is wrong, but parading the videos is also wrong.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
"The answer is clear. They make the bureaucrats look bad."
How about frigging human decency. This persons had a family, friends, and acquaintance. How about this was a HUMAN being. You see free speech as trumping *everything* including human decency. I see human decency as being more important than free speech. As for your qip about bureaucrats looking bad , frankly where do you pull that shit out ? It only makes ISIS or whatever flavor of barbar did that looks bad. It does not reflect on any administration badly, be it american or jordanian. Why do i get the feeling you analyze *ANY* events with the tainted political glasses ? At least that explain why you did not think of human decency first.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Seriously now.
We show horrific things in movies, then when the crowds go watch actual terrorist media, they go "har har that's just special fx".
In failing to expose our culture to what the bad guys actually do, we've become a culture that lost it's understanding of why sadism and barbarianism is wrong.
Of course our wonderful mainstream media wants us to keep watching TV and watching violence, it desensitizes us to what the government does to people on a daily basis.
see topic.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Who is to be the arbiter of what should and should not be said? Do they know the motive of every statement a person makes every time they make them? How can anyone teach people bad arguments if they can't hear them? The answer to those questions are "Nobody", "Fat Chance", and "Impossible".
If you fear debate and are so inadequate in your own opinion that you wish to censor, remain a hermit. Hide in your house and hire a good delivery person. The world is full of contrary opinions, and you can't possibly agree with them all.
I have no issues with Freedom of Speech because I trust my own opinions, beliefs, and ability to debate. I can defend my opinion rationally and factually, even when it's not the popular argument. I am not always right, and I do make mistakes. That is how I improve myself and my opinions and I welcome debate so that I can improve.
Believing that speech can be controlled and regulated is a delusion. From the times of Ancient Greece to present people have tried, all to no avail. You can only control your own ability to hear the arguments and defend your own position.
In a rare moment of defending Fox "News" I believe that what they did was perfectly valid. They did not force anyone to watch the video. Anyone that didn't want to see it had ample opportunity to avoid the video. If you go out of your way to feel offended, then you deserve to be offended.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Some background first:
I am a non-Muslim living inside an Islamic country
Every single day in our lives we non-Muslims have to go through a whole range of insults, intimidation, threats by the Muslims, and almost every single week we hear horror stories of how our fellow non-Muslims got beaten up, tortured or even murdered, simply because they have the right to do whatever they want to us --- all they need is to accuse us of 'insult Islam' and they get off whatever crime they do to us scott free - it is the law of the land, btw
I am not saying that 100% of the Muslims are devils, no, not 100% of them are bad. There are indeed some _good_ Muslims, but the unfortunately thing is, the _good_ Muslims are of the minority
So, going back to the main topic - should we allow those horrific pictures / videos to be shown, or should we censor them?
As a non-Muslim and as one who have had friends and relatives died in the hands of the Muslims, I personally do not like the pictures / videos of my friends / relatives - the terrible ways they were killed - to be aired to the world
Personally I do feel that airing the video / pictures of how they were killed is an insult to them, because they already suffered once, when they were killed, and airing the horrific way under which they died, is like murdering them all over again
That is how I feel, emotionally
But for the sake of the world at large, I will give my full support to keep those videos / pictures, no matter how horrific they are, to be aired to the world
Sounds confusing ?
You see, they terrible way my friends / relatives had suffered, their sufferings shouldn't have to go in vain
Their sufferings should become bloody reminders to the world - to show how terrible this religion of Islam really is
I will even go so far as to say that, if one day I ended up in the hand of those devils and they tortured me, and brutally slaughtered me, and took video and/or pictures of the whole process, I still want those videos and pictures to be shown to the world
Yes, those pictures / videos will show you guys how I died, and the terrible ways I died, and perhaps it will even show you how cowardice I am, before I die, but I will still give my full support to the cause of letting those videos / pictures to become a reminder to the world how terrible Islam really is
You guys do not know Islam. I do, and people like me do
No matter how many times we tell you how terrible Islam is you guys will never believe us
No matter how many times we show you the statistics, on how many of us they have killed, you guys still will never listen
If it needs to take the way we die, the bloody ways, on how their knives slicing our neck, how they cut off our head, how they burn us to death, et cetera, if it needs to do that in order to wake the world up, so be it
Let us be the reminder to you guys
Let us be the tools for you guys to be educated
Just do not censor the videos and/or the pictures
Show them, show them everywhere, let people see
Yes, the videos and the pictures are disgusting
Yes, they are revolting
But if it has to go the way of absolute disgust in order to get you guys understand the true nature of Islam, so be it
As to the claims from some of those liberals that 'oh, those pictures will encourage even more of the Muslims to participate in those barbaric act', let me tell you this ...
Even without the videos / pictures, the Muslims are already doing that to the non-Muslims
They do not need videos / pictures to become savages - their religious teaching already inculcate in them all the savageries
As I said, you guys do not understand Islam. We do, and that is what I have to say
I am not asking you to believe me - all I am saying is, do not let those who suffered and died in the hands of those Muslims died for nothing
Let their death be a warning to you all
I can not let you know who I am - not yet - that is why I am posting this under AC
Wow. You dummies really need to take a second and read the bill of rights. All that freedom of speech guarantees is there won't be any laws passed infringing it. There's no guarantee of an audience for anything anyone has to say. There's no guarantee that there will be no consequences for speaking your mind. You won't be arrested for it, though, that's guaranteed.
If I owned a valuable media company I sure as hell wouldn't want it associated with snuff films. You can distribute your shit some other way, thank you very much.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
All those American social media have policy preventing to show even a small part of a tits, but it is fine to show someone burnt alive??? WTF? Have you lost any basic common sense? "Violence should be worshiped and sex is bad" is the new America social standard that is pushed to the rest of the world.
With all this censorship, I haven't even been able to find the damn video everyone is talking about.
I can't be the only one to have realized that news tends to be one-sided if not always one-sided propaganda. If its not the government or jihadist's propaganda then its some companies. The media doesn't have journalistic integrity either, but an interest in attracting the most eyeballs. There may be some journalistic integrity somewhere and we should recognize the need not to censor anybody- not terrorists, child molesters, corporate interests, governments, politic groups, murders, genocidal maniacs, adolf hilter. Nobody. Censorship is how we get ourselves as a society into trouble.
And while free speech may legally only apply to governments we don't really have it if we're dependent on the elites and corporate interests of society. The reality is if we want to have freedom of speech we need to spread control of the megaphone out among many groups and not shut down those groups to “protect society”. Free speech must apply to everyone everywhere if it is to be a fair and just society. Sadly we force those we or some don't like into therapy, onto drugs, etc and do everything to get them apologize and show “remorse”. All that really does is show whose got the power and who doesn't and whose able to shape our perceptions. The reality is there are groups given unjust influence over us. They're taking advantage of perceptions to re-enforce wrongful perception that are more shocking than reality itself. In the meantime the real shocking stuff is often covered up: do I need to remind people of the torture by the US government of prisoners held and gitmo? Where are they? They still haven't been fully released.
BTK video ... of your young niece? ... of your mum?
Or a snuff video
Can't walk the walk? Then don't talk the talk!
More to the point - all copyright or ownership of the video became forfeit to the young man when he was being tortured. And it has passed to his legal hiers. So if they don't want you to watch it, or wish to remove certain portions, you do not have the right to watch or distribute it.
The only exceptions are fair use, or genuine public interest (with 'public interest' determined by a legitimate authority - like a government fighting the murderers)..
Supporters of the GPL, or any copyright-based licenses - this is particularly applicable to you.
The point is not to instil fear. The point is to rile you up, and induce you to commit into the cycle of violence. From which it is easier to gather recruits. This is how they win. So do yourself a favour if you're prone to being highly emotional and not watch it.
You know someone's argument is bunk when they have to invoke a quotation from Piers Morgan as a supporting argument.
But quite apart from ad hominem arguments, I would have a little more sympathy with social media citing "freedom of speech" arguments to support leaving ultraviolent videos online if they were consistent and cited the same "freedom of speech" arguments to justify leaving pornographic videos online. Until they are consistent they aren't really supporting freedom of speech at all, merely limiting it in a manner of their choosing.
Not that hard. They could lash you with box jellyfish tentacles. So painful that people keep screaming even after they've lost consciousness.
Just the same as Abu Hamsa, or the Imams inciting a riot over the cartoons of Muhammed, these sorts of videos incite a riot in the general public.
The media sites won't publish inflamatory rhetoric of muslim imams, nor pictures of western atrocities. Until they're on board "freedom of speech" enough to manage that, they should refrain from this sort of rabble rousing.
Erotic pictures of children.
Free speech.
Not one we put up with.
Another one: Wikileaks.
Another one: Edward Snowden.
Another one: Aaron Schwartz.
Another: Abu Hamsa.
We do shut people up. And somehow we think it's right. Then we turn up and go "We should, cos free speech! Simples!". Not so simple when it's speech you don't like to see...
After all, the act of doing that abuse is illegal, but disseminating it is pure speech. Therefore you should be all up your government's ass demanding the removal of the laws against KP right? Write them a stern letter telling them they should remove all anti-KP laws for reasons of free speech and not bar you or investigate you for a potential paedophile.
Or are restrictions on free speech sometimes acceptable to you, unlike the cases where you pop up with "FREE SPEECH! FREEEEEEE SPPEEEEEEEEEEECHHHHH!!!!".
After all, the act of doing that abuse is illegal, but disseminating it is pure speech. Therefore you should be all up your government's ass demanding the removal of the laws against KP right? Write them a stern letter telling them they should remove all anti-KP laws for reasons of free speech and not bar you or investigate you for a potential paedophile.
Or are restrictions on free speech sometimes acceptable to you, unlike the cases where you pop up with "FREE SPEECH! FREEEEEEE SPPEEEEEEEEEEECHHHHH!!!!".
Yes, because making sure people are aware of the horrors of allowing tyrants to run wild is the same as kiddie-porn in your mind, right?
We can only be thankful you are the only one who has to live in your skull.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Why? Do you consider it not serious enough to warrant being called speech? Or is the ISIS vid what people need to know (that ISIS are bad???) but that they don't need to know what their own country is doing (USA! Fukc Yeah!)?
If so, who made you arbiter of what people need to know.
US actions give license to fuckwits like ISIS. Continuing to censor the facts of bad actions done by "us good guys" keeps ISIS believing that they have every right to do it, since we prove our rhetoric about free speech, due process and rights are all bullshit.
When "our guys" are shown up, Julian Assange is targeted with arrest and WL upbraided and twats like you go "But they only show OUR guys doing bad stuff! Why don't they show Russians?!?!?!" (when they DO). When it comes to US Atrocities, it's all "Well inform people of ALL the bad things done!!!!".When it comes to ISIS Atrocities, it's all "HEY! Don't distract with our stuff, 'moral equivalence sweepstakes'!!!!".
Keeping that double standard crushed to your breast ensures that you keep ISIS alive.
There is a difference between allowing free expression of opinions, no matter how offensive, and posting graphic images of the humiliating torture and death of other individuals.
Consider the following contrasting situations:
First scenario: A terrorist group calling itself "Death to Anonymous Lepers and Knowalls on Slashdot" or "DALEKS" posts all over the internet an opinion stating that all people who post anonymously on Slashdot should be disemboweled and forced to eat their own offal.
That's pretty nasty, but it is just words. Hopefully, most people will get the idea that this is a bit of an extremist view and not really worthy of much consideration. Most people will quit reading, say "meh" and move on.
Second scenario - the DALEKS actually show up on your doorstep, capture you and carry out their fantasy, with iPhone video camera running. This video of a horrible and humiliating torture-porn death of an individual gets posted all over the wonderful internet, splashed across the front pages of the redtop papers and gets the perpetrators a lot of much-craved attention.
DALEKS: Hey, we're famous! it worked! Let's do it again!
And, as an added attraction, every other sick nutbag in the world is going to take notice and possibly decide that it's worth a shot to try something similar, for fame and fortune.
In short - I think they have the right to say whatever they want, but acting out sick torture fantasies and posting videos is a different matter and should not be covered under free speech protections. These are attention-seeking, very disturbed and psychologically diseased individuals. No one should be allowed to get attention by inflicting pain and humiliation on others.
Lets ban all those horrible images from WOII too.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Free speech is something only directed at government forbidding or allowing some speech. You self censoring to respect human decency, is basic moral and has nothing to do with free speech.
Are you the type of guy derailing a funeral because you dislike the guy which died ? You would be a perfect recruit for west-borough Baptiste church : take your megaphone to the funeral and peter the family. THAT is your version of free speech. I am quite glad we do not have such version, and peace and human decency have laws to stop such things happening near our cemeteries.... Go take your megaphone in the street where it belongs. Leave the family and bereaved in peace. If you are not able to do that, then your free speech is worthless as not to be able to respect basic human decency, it is rotten at its core.
Why not just title this thing, "An argument against taking down horrific videos?"
He giveth virgins and falafels
Control being control of what I can do (government) or what I can see (media).
I am the decider of my own morality. So long as you inform me about what I am signing up to see or do in ways that do not impact others, I will chose if it is acceptable. You have no right to determine my own morality as long as it impacts me.
When my choices and actions impact others in ways they cannot chose to avoid or ignore (ie I can and successfully have ignored most of these videos as I believe the description was sufficient. Others may chose to view them.) you may step in and inform or restrain me as appropriate. Until I have crossed that line, please remain OUT of my life.
Thank you.
... Now if we could just all agree on what actually impacts other people, sigh.
Yes, because making sure people are aware of the horrors of allowing tyrants to run wild is the same as kiddie-porn in your mind, right?
How is a video depicting the fear, pain, and horror experienced by a victim of child abuse any different from a video depicting the fear, pain, and horror experienced by victims of tyrants? Do they not both show how wrong the tyranny/abuse is, even if some people are titillated by the video?
I can't believe that none of you read the message and not be moved. I am!
I lived in Indonesia for 3 years and in Malaysia for 2 years and I knew how offensive those arrogant Moslems can be.
I do not have mod point or I would definitely mod parent up !!
Mod parent up !
Look for people who strenuously oppose posting such videos, in places where strong language and visuals commonly appear, and you know who ISIS' domestic friends are.
It has slipped slowly but I seem to stumble onto hate speech about everywhere now - be it ISIS little shows, Ukrainian rebels taunting the enemy with gruesome videos, I've felt sick when I realized you could find torture videos directed toward _some enemy_ just like that on youtube.
So much for the internet, so much for freedom of speech, so much for bringing the world together.
a) Nothing ever disappears on the internet, why is this still a question? b) Censorship is never good. Ever.
99% of things journalists show has no legitimate journalistic purpose, other than it falls under freedom of speech and people will tune in/click to see it.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I looked but couldn't find the video of the Jordanian pilot being burned alive. The fact is, there have been so many fake videos and many allegidly from ISIS/ISIL that we must scrutinize them all.
From the still photos, I noticed some questionable things.
1. Why was he standing in the middle of the cage right on top of the 'X'?
2. Why didn't he use his feet to try and stire up the sand so it would not burn the way they intended?
3. Why didn't he try to lift the cage to top it over and effect escape?
4. Why didn't he try to squeze through the bars? They looked far enough apart that he might be able to escape.
Independent of free speech issues, it forces us to confront the contents of the video. Jordan now appears to be balls deep in the conflict because of that video.
I'm not saying it's the duty of every person to confront evil in the world, petty or explicit, but a lot of us can handle it and wouldn't opt out. Just create a non-porn 18+ filter that 18+ can opt in for. Apply the filter after a couple thousand video reports.
Ever notice we never see pictures of the actual effects of our foreign policies in the news at home? Say, the bodies of dead dismembered kids or any number of untold horrific scenes that are the consequence of our bombings in - pick any place we're engaged in? Foreign media will show the gruesome images and makes the concrete effects of our actions very visceral. As well articulated in the "Manufacture of Consent", the policies of local media serves the purpose of maintaining whatever support can be mustered in the public to continue our own terrorist actions.
Because no one can read everything - so a preponderance of unwelcome body part augmentation advice can limit ability of people to have intended conversation. Hence any attempt to reduce spam is counter-censorship.
Moderation is an attempt to reduce spam, and therefore, counter-censorship.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.