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.

Comments

I've got this

[One With Whisp]

An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

Freedom of speech.

There done. Issue solved. Next?

Re:I've got this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. If you start censoring them, then you are effectively doing the job of terrorists by trying to remove freedom.

Re:I've got this

[Enry]

Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.

Re: I've got this

[epyT-R]

The for the children excuse is the most abused one by tyrants. If your kids can't handle the internet then maybe you should be teaching them about the harsh realities of life instead of your own fantasy world where everyone is a loving hipster.

Re: I've got this

[Anonymous Coward]

Teaching a child about people burning other people alive isn't as easy as it sounds.

Re:I've got this

[Noah Haders]

Sorry to burst your tea party bubble, but freedom of speech only applies to government actions. Twitter is private property, and they'll censor your posts however they want to. Don't like it? Go make your own social medium.

Re:I've got this

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument can also be had by not remove them you are doing the job of terrorists for them. They created the videos so people would see them and instil fear. There really is no win situation here, showing them gets them the media exposure they desire and not showing them restricts your freedom. It is a case of pick your poison.

Re:I've got this

[epyT-R]

However, it's also good for the public to have all the facts..and pictures can send a much more accurate description than dry, politically correct speech from some anchorman. Give them the media exposure.. It just shows how degenerate they are.

Re:I've got this

[Kielistic]

In the end the truth actually hurts the public self interests more

Said every corrupt dictator ever. You somehow think you're qualified to judge what "truth" the public can handle?

Re: I've got this

[drGreg]

"Fairie tales don't tell children that dragons exist. They already know that. They tell children that dragons can be killed." (G.K. Chesterton)

Re:I've got this

[Kielistic]

The fact that you think you are qualified to deem what is and isn't "trash" pretty firmly puts you in the "Orwellian" camp. The fact that you have already made the jump from people being burned alive on camera to "online harassment" is proof enough that you won't see fit to stop censoring at graphic violent content.

I'm not the one trying to define "truth". You are saying "it is truth that this content is ungood and must be removed". I'm just saying that's not anyone's decision to make. And anyone that claims they are capable of judging what should and should not be censored should not be allowed anywhere near the "censor" button.

Re:I've got this

[BronsCon]

+1 to this. The great thing about America is that I have the freedom to speak my mind and you have the freedom to ignore me. That should extend everywhere; if NBC wants to air porn, graphic depictions of murders, and terrorist propaganda all day, they should be allowed to, so long as you are allowed to change the channel, or simply not tune in if you don't want to see it. What I don't understand, and never will, is peoples' propensity toward an "I don't want it for myself, so you shouldn't be allowed to have it, either" mindset. Is it a jealousy issue? Do they not want other people to have things they don't have, so they want things they don't want banned on the grounds that they, themselves, will never have them? We are a narcissistic enough population, on the whole, that this is, sadly, a possible explanation for the behavior.

Privacy..respect...

[Rick in China]

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.

Attention: Media

[MrKaos]

More sex, less violence please.

Free Speech or Die

[zapadnik]

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:

• A Modern Liberal/Progressive - do you want social conservatives to be able to censor your speech?
• A Classic Liberal/Constitutional Conservative - do you want the neo-Marxists to be able to censor your speech?
• A scientist - do you want an Intelligent Designer to be able to censor your speech?
• Religious - do you want anti-theists to be able to censor your speech?
• An Israel - do you want the jihadis to be able to censor you speech?
• A Muslim - do you want the Jews to be able to censor your speech?
• An atheist - do you want the Islamic State/Caliphate to be able to censor your speech?
• An American - do you want the North Koreans to be able to censor your speech?
• Chinese - do you want the Americans to be able to censor your speech?

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!

Oddly enough

[sunking2]

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.