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

[squiggleslash]

The person whose megaphone is being used.

If you really want to turn yourself into ISIL's publicity arm, as Fox News has decided to do, then start your own website. Don't start whining about "Freedom of speech" when you've decided to use someone else's resources, be it Facebook, YouTube, or even Geocities, to host or distribute it, only to find they object to being used by a horrific terrorist organization.

Re: I've got this

[Oligonicella]

Rather easy if you've read them fairy tales as they grew up.

Re:I've got this

[bloodhawk]

People are stupid. giving them all the facts in glorious detail only ever creates irrational fear and makes it easier for the government to bring in ridiculous anti terror laws while at the same time giving the evil doers everything they wanted. You really think they give a shit that people will see them as degenerate? They want fear and to express there dominance that they can do whatever they want, which by airing it everywhere they are granted. There really is no good solution here though I would err on the side of not showing it just too spite the perpetrators.

Re: I've got this

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Handsel & Gretel?

Re:I've got this

[epyT-R]

Keeping truth from the public only helps reinforce ignorance.

Re:I've got this

[bloodhawk]

You don't have to keep truth from them. There is a massive difference between hiding the facts and simply not publically showing the videos. In the end the truth actually hurts the public self interests more, just watch as this is used as a reason more even more strict and invasive laws all with the support of the public because they are scared they might get burned alive too.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

A description of the video contents is far more useful than actually showing them to people. If so many people hadn't witnessed 9/11 first hand we might not have gone ape shit over the whole thing and reacted more productively. Instead we attacked a country that had nothing to do with the plot, gave up a huge amount of civil liberties and tortured the shit out of people in order to satiate our blood lust.

Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean that we should do something.

Re: I've got this

[Kielistic]

Do you have kids? I do. I trust them and teach them right and wrong etc but don't watch them 24/7 and am not keen on young kids coming across ___ online

Fill in for your favourite pet problem. "Porn", "gay porn", "dissident material".

Is it just me or is it becoming terrifyingly common for people to be recommending basic fascist style totalitarianism to deal with anything that causes them slight discomfort?

Re: I've got this

[brantondaveperson]

Not allowing children to see videos of people being meeting violent, terrifying and agonising deaths is not 'fascist style totalitarianism' - and would cause children rather more than 'slight discomfort'. Contrary to a couple of rather bizarre posts above, this is nothing at all like Hansel and Gretel.

Re:I've got this

[Samantha Wright]

If terrorism is a way to guarantee people do your job for you, then perhaps we have discovered the secret eighth habit of highly effective managers?

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

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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

Yes, but it develops into a very effective parenting tool:

"You will eat your spinach! Otherwise, you will be sent to the Islamic State, where they will cook you in a cage alive, and then eat you!"

"With spinach."

Re:I've got this

[Kielistic]

If truth "damages your freedom" then you've got bigger problems. Graphic content can be disturbing to people but it certainly doesn't damage their freedom (whatever that means). There's a reason there is such a thing as a "graphic content warning".

You then go on to explain that, yes, you do think you are qualified to judge what truth the public can handle. That line of thinking is how every dictatorship gets its hold.

Re:I've got this

[mikeiver1]

This is an easy one. You can't remove them, they will just be uploaded again and again. What you can do is simply not watch or otherwise acknowledge their existence at all and in doing so you strip the power and motive as well to make such crap. There will always be those that seek out and enjoy this kind of imagery, they need help. But they are in the small minority. I have not seen any of the beheadings nor the pilot being burned and have managed to miss two girls one cup to boot! I have far better things to watch. Is there not enough killing and filth on the TV and in the movies to satisfy people without seeking out the videos of those stupid and unfortunate enough to go to one of these third world shit holes and get taken by these sick fucks and ultimately killed by them for fun and profit? As the years progress entertainment more and more is tailored to the lowest common denominator, look at all the reality shows. With the exception of maybe four or five the rest are all total shit. We would not remove them though a strong case could be made that they do a great deal of harm to society when the idiots that seek them out and watch later emulate. It all comes back to education, we have shit for schools here in the USofA and turn out some of the dumbest kids now. Smart people don't watch this crap nor do they seek it out. For fucks sake, pick up a god damned book for once!

Re: I've got this

[Kielistic]

And bringing children up might make sense if people were saying we should interrupt the cartoon network with breaking news of somebody being burned alive.

If you start advocating censoring adult spaces because you don't want children to see content you are simply being disingenuous about your reasons. We cannot be expected to bring adult spaces and adult knowledge down to a level you deem acceptable for children. And if you don't think you can handle that content then you, presumably, have the maturity to avoid it.

Re:I've got this

[cowwoc2001]

An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

Freedom of speech.

There done. Issue solved. Next?

Nonsense.

Freedom of Speech for own own citizens is one thing. Freedom of Speech for people who are unquestionably trying to wipe out our citizens is another matter. One of the very first thing you do during a war is take out the enemy's communication capabilities. This is no different.

What is gained by enabling them to spread their propaganda? Why fight a battle with our hands tied behind our backs?

Re:I've got this

[DNS-and-BIND]

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
-- Richard Salant, former President of CBS News

"While Dan Rather attempts to rationalize the network's heartless decision to air this despicable 'terrorist propaganda video,' it is beyond our comprehension that any mother, wife, father or sister should have to relive this horrific tragedy and watch their loved one being repeatedly terrorized," the family said.

"Terrorists have made this video confident that the American media would broadcast it and thereby serve their exact purpose. By showing this video, CBS or any other broadcaster willing to show it proves that they fall without shame into the terrorists' plan."
-- Mariane Pearl, May 15, 2002

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

[Kielistic]

I had heard that Americans were glued to their televisions but I had no idea it was a literal statement. Turn it off if you don't want to see it. You're a god damn adult.

There are all kinds of things that people might not want to read/see in the news. Obituaries of loved ones. Accounts of people that die in auto accidents or fires or other tragedies. I suppose we should simply get rid off all those as well?

Who gives a damn what the terrorists want? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. "Well the terrorists expected us to behave as a free and open society so I guess we better not do that". Come to think of it- that sounds pretty much exactly what the US is doing.

Better not let the people see caskets of dead soldiers coming home either. It's totally about respecting the feelings of loved ones and not about making sure Americans don't see the consequences of fighting in pointless wars.

Re:I've got this

[Anonymous Coward]

"ISIS militants have released video that they claim shows Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kaseasbeh being burned alive while locked in a cage. The horrific video has been released on the internet, and appears to be authentic.

What "truth" is being kept from the public here? Nobody's saying "make something up and refuse to talk about the video or the murder of this prisoner of war." What "information," exactly, is being withheld from the public? What legitimate informational purpose is served by allowing a bunch of random shitheads around the world to watch another human being being literally roasted alive?

If you want the "information" of understanding what burns look like on human flesh, there are plenty of existing medical texts available that don't require the sacrifice of ANOTHER human being. The argument that "not showing the video" equates to some sort of cover-up is nonsense. You can cover the video, without actually SHOWING the video.

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.

Re: I've got this

[BronsCon]

If you've taught them right and wrong, as the AC in this discussion claims to have, they'll come out fine regardless of what they might find on the interwebz. I've come across some pretty disturbing shit online, as well as in real life, been exposed to it all since my early teens, and yet I'm not out raping and murdering. This is certainly no because all of the content I've ever been exposed to was censored "for my protection"; no, it's because my parents taught me right.

Re: I've got this

[BronsCon]

Here's the thing: I don't have kids. I was one, I know how I was raised, and I've discussed with my parents how I was raised and why I was raised that way. I am aware of my own self image and of how other view me, so I know whether or not my parents did a good job raising me and I can say that they did. And that is how I know how to properly raise a child, despite not having any of my own. I don't purport to know what a royal pain in the ass raising a child actually is, or even that I'm qualified to do so, but I certainly know how.

Even people who don't have children of their own *can* be qualified to comment on the subject, it's just that many don't take the necessary steps to earn that qualification. Incidentally, even having children of their own won't qualify those people to comment.

Re:I've got this

[MrL0G1C]

How many of the people saying the murder should be shown are taking the family of the murdered guy in to account?

If you were against public hanging, would you join the crowd of a public hanging? How many of the people who attend public hangings are actually there to see justice done and how many are there for the entertainment value? But for some reason it is OK to gawp at someone being murdered on TV, how is this any better than visiting a public hanging for entertainment. I haven't seen the killing, I don't need to see it to understand that it was brutal and inhumane.

Remember that Isis claim that the killing of the pilot is just and that it is an execution, they claim that what they are doing is correct by their religion. So, Isis execute a guy and people worldwide watch the execution, this is exactly what they want.

This isn't about censorship, it's about whether it's right in a civilised society to be watching the murder of somebody who is not a friend or family. News can report murder without graphically showing it, censorship would be to withhold the information that the murder occurred, there is no need to show the video and not showing the video is not censorship when the information regarding the murder is still published.

We all know what murder is, we know what immolation and decapitation are, a video showing these things does not add anything, but what it does do is give the terrorists what they really do want - to be publicised in the most graphic way possible. Isis's goal is not censorship, Isis's goal is to convert people to Islam, a real smack-down to Isis would be for the media to just report that Isis killed the pilot of the captured plane and leave it at that, why give them what they want and publish the video?

Re: I've got this

[peragrin]

Right and myth busters has hundreds of episodes where the myth is something exploded but in reality it just burned really fast. And getting it to explode is really really hard.

Descriptive words are very subjective and misleading. I can burn you alive by holding a lighter to your skin until you get a burn. It is descriptively the same meaning.

Re: I've got this

[CanHasDIY]

If you're letting children browse the internet without supervision, they're going to be the ones who end up needing professional help.

Raising your kid the way you think is right is your job, not society's. If that includes shielding them from horrifying imagery, then shield them, but don't demand society shield everyone because you are too lazy/incompetent/whatever to rear a child properly with the assistance and cooperation of 7 billion other people.

And if you're worried about them seeing these things while outside your influence, might I suggest you do a better job teaching them right from wrong, so you won't have to worry about them getting their morality from YouTube videos.

Re: I've got this

[CanHasDIY]

...completely no-holes-barred...

Usually I like to correct people's misunderstanding of terms (like when they spell "Voila" W-A-L-L-A), but I think I'm going to let this one slide, considering the context...

Re:I've got this

[ultranova]

An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

Freedom of speech.

There done. Issue solved. Next?

Sadly, no, because freedom of speech simply means social media sites (or anyone else) are allowed to host horrific videos, not that they should. Social media sites and other institutions are not public but private entities, and as such are not required to offer free speech for their users. Perhaps they should be considered semi-public, and forced to play by rules somewhere between the government and mere humans, but currently they aren't.

Re:I've got this

[CanHasDIY]

An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

Freedom of speech.

There done. Issue solved. Next?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean providing someone a soap box.

True, but it does mean that you have a right to provide someone a soapbox regardless of how much someone else might not want to hear them.

Re:I've got this

[jellomizer]

Just because you have the freedom to say something, doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so.
Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut.

The risk of showing such videos may be counter effective to the point you want to bring across. You may want to explain how horrific war is, but the effect may be desensitizing people to such images, so when the next war is proposed the fact such things can happen just doesn't enter as being as bad as it actually is.
Then you have gawkers who are less interested in the story, but just wants to see the gore.

Free speech isn't just showing everything you have to show, but it is about explaining your point across. This is the free speech that a lot of people don't have. They are afraid to say that they support the opposition party, because they will get arrested. There are people afraid to bring up alternate ideas or bring up a new idea. That is freedom of speech.

Now the government shouldn't stop you from doing whatever you want to try to make your point across, but that doesn't mean that you should use everything, because sometimes it is counter productive.

About Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere, hopefully in Nirvana, a self-immolating monks nods in approval.

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.

Re:How about the atrocities committed by the USA?

[DaHat]

Yes, because the US has so often set fire to persons who would normally be called legitimate prisoners of war (uniformed, part of a regular military, etch) in order to execute them for... what exactly?

How many folks at Gitmo have been executed? Of the survivors... how many have gained weight because of their treatment there?

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!

Censorship at /., HN, Reddit.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Censorship at /., HN, Reddit.

[BarbaraHudson]

Users up/downmodding comments is not censorship. The posts are still there for everyone to read, which is not censorship. The rating gives an idea of what readers think about the comment, which is also free speech - but apparently you would like to censor / regulate that.

Re:Censorship at /., HN, Reddit.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you talking about?

A moderator censoring a comment posted by somebody else isn't an act of "free speech".

If a moderator disagrees with what somebody else expressed, they can post a reply expressing such disagreement.

Re:Censorship at /., HN, Reddit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what you're talking about now.

You're talking about rating comments. That's not moderation (a.k.a censorship), which is what the rest of us are talking about.

There's no problem with somebody rating a comment. The problem is when that rating is used to hide (a.k.a. censor) the rated comments.

I hope that you're intelligent enough to understand this distinction.

Re: Censorship at /., HN, Reddit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Burning all the books (akin to deleting all posts forever and ever) is a lot different than putting books in the basement where you have to go out of your way to see them (modding down). If censorship means both things we obviously need a new word. (My English vocabulary is poor to suggest)

Re: Censorship at /., HN, Reddit.

[BronsCon]

The four comments above mine don't get one simple fact: Every word on Reddit is published by Reddit, making it Reddit's speech, and Reddit is free to determine the content of Reddit's own speech. That's how freedom of speech works.

Re: Censorship at /., HN, Reddit.

[BronsCon]

I take that back; I actually agree with something BarbaraHudson said for once. WTF?

Re:Censorship at /., HN, Reddit.

[Aighearach]

Slashdot moderators don't moderate, they just rate.

Having a low score does not censor a comment, it just changes how it gets sorted.

No, they can't moderate and also reply.

Any other FAQs I can help you with today, Mr. Coward?

Oh yeah, and get the [bleep] off my lawn.

Re:Censorship at /., HN, Reddit.

[znrt]

If the comment isn't shown by default, then it has been censored. It's as simple as that.

there is a handy slider you can drag all the way to -1, plus a detailed description of how it works. was the first thing i did when i first came to /.

i have to assume that people not moving the slider don't care about not seeing content based on others' criteria. stating that this is censorship would be implying they are too dumb to understand the filter. be my guest.

of course there will be censorship in that not everything submitted will get published, but once it is it's the user's choice. you can't put everything on the front page, and if your audiencie never looks beyond the front page that's a different issue.

Waterboarding....

[kenwd0elq]

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/...

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.

Re:Why do people want them down?

[phantomfive]

The key question is why do governments want them down so badly?

I think that begs the question......do they? So far all the complaints I've seen have been from other media companies, but that's to be expected, they are competitors after all.

Summary of the Video

[Kunedog]

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...

Re:How about the atrocities committed by the USA?

[Gavagai80]

Although it may kill a lot more people, waging war in the knowledge that innocent people will die is rightfully treated very differently from actively targeting defenseless innocents as a primary war strategy. Morality is not the math of summing up body counts. Both are in my opinion immoral, but the active targeting is far more so.

allow 'pull' but don't 'push'

[TheGratefulNet]

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.

Why do people want them down? Easy answer.

[aepervius]

"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.

Delusion

[s.petry]

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.

Re:Perspective?

[MrL0G1C]

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?

Every single person who could of helped but didn't is responsible, that's simple, why do you even need to ask?

If someone is dying and you can help, why wouldn't you?

But in the case of deaths due to poverty it's harder to assign "responsibility".

Greed, corporate control of countries via treaties and futures markets. Deliberate lack of distribution of wealth.