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.
Yep. If you start censoring them, then you are effectively doing the job of terrorists by trying to remove freedom.
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.
More sex, less violence please.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Teaching a child about people burning other people alive isn't as easy as it sounds.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.