Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Canada Crime Your Rights Online

Gore Site Operator Arrested For Posting Video of Murder 289

theshowmecanuck writes "According to the Montreal Gazette, 'The owner and operator of a well-known 'real gore' website is charged with corrupting morals for posting a video allegedly depicting the murder of student Jun Lin by Luka Magnotta. Magnotta, 30, is currently in custody charged with first-degree murder in the death of the 33-year-old Chinese international student, who was killed in Montreal in May 2012. The victim's severed limbs were then mailed to political parties and elementary schools, and his torso found inside a discarded suitcase.' A news interview with the detective in charge of the case, airing on CTV as I type this, says he believes the web site hosts a lot of racist content and unimaginable violence. You should note that Canada has less free speech than in America (we have 'hate crime laws'), but there will likely be some arguments in this vein. The charge against the operator is quite rare and no-one so far remembers it ever being used before."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gore Site Operator Arrested For Posting Video of Murder

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @06:18PM (#44312625)

    Make me glad the NSA spys on everyone.

    Someone should be keeping tabs on nutbags like this.

    What happens when a nutbag joins the NSA?

  • by bstarrfield ( 761726 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @06:28PM (#44312713)

    There are some things simply beyond the pale in any decent society. Entertaining people through showing a grisly, cruel murder can do nothing but harm the family, friends, and love ones of the victim. It has absolutely no political, educational, moral effect, nor any deterrent to any crime. It has no value whatsoever to shock and delight those deranged enough to view a heinous act.

    The Framers had clear reasons for promoting freedom of speech, primarily to serve the political health of the nation by fostering free debate. And yes, they came from a society that still had public executions, some of which were (in England at least) just as brutal as this crime as more. But they did not create freedom of speech to promote sheer depravity. Laws exist in the context of their society, even what we consider natural law, and there are some things that a society has every damn right to ban - child pornography, and yes, showing a murder for fun.

    What must be going through the minds of this poor woman's parents? Is that pain worth a shock to an increasingly cynical population? This was beyond the pale, and does corrupt public morals by desensitizing people to murder. The owner of the site deserves these charges.

  • Re:Mob rule (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @06:29PM (#44312729)

    This kind of thing should be handled through social ostracism, not laws. Politicians leading mobs to silence people is nothing honorable.

    So it should be handled by mob rule (social ostracism), just not by mob rule (laws). So long as it's YOUR mob, you're okay with it. Just don't anyone form or join a mob against YOU, and then it's honorable and moral. Got it.

  • Singularly (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mikkeles ( 698461 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @06:38PM (#44312797)

    The only people here with corrupt morals are the police and the politicians who passed this law.

  • by MrEricSir ( 398214 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @06:39PM (#44312805) Homepage

    The idea that people shouldn't be entertained by violence is the same argument that's been used to ban video games, movies, etc. Think about ALL of the implications what you're saying here -- are you sure this is really the road you want to go down?

  • Not appropriate?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @06:40PM (#44312815) Homepage Journal

    I once lived near Canada and admired the view that anything related to an upcoming trial be kept out of the news. Where it's treated like entertainment or tantalizing marketing in the United States, it's good to see Canada believes the public should not be forming opinions based upon partial evidence or hearsay.

    Looks to my untrained eye like the site operator was violating this ban, beyond simply poor taste.

  • by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @06:54PM (#44312923)

    What must be going through the minds of this poor woman's parents? Is that pain worth a shock to an increasingly cynical population? This was beyond the pale, and does corrupt public morals by desensitizing people to murder. The owner of the site deserves these charges.

    See the problem here is others get to use the very same words to justify banning of a great number of tasteless things such as horror flicks, gratuitious violence in every movie worth seeing and public service announcements consisting of little kids taking great joy in dismembering a certain purple dinosaur.

    It always comes down to your personally shocked by obscene behavior of others therefore you feeling justified in taking that logical leap therefore such behavior ought to be illegal.

    I personally would feel better if and every fucked up chick who digs that shit where fed to sharks... except the price of freedom is such that I must tolerate all manner of distasteful assholes in this country. When you take tolerance away the cure is worse than the disease. There are plenty of countries which enforce decency and respect thru state sanctioned violence you could move to if you felt so compelled.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @06:56PM (#44312937)

    It is not a snuff film if it was not created with the intent to earn money or at least entertain. If the intent of recording the film does not count towards the definition of a snuff film, then "Faces of Death" would be considered a snuff film since some of the scenes are actual authentic footage of people dying.

  • by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @07:06PM (#44313013) Journal

    But they did not create freedom of speech to promote sheer depravity.

    And yet if you give governments the power to ban things because they are "depraved" suddenly everyone despised by the people in power are all depraved. Funny you mentioned banning child porn, it seems that every time some government comes up with a new child porn blocklist, people find examples of exactly this misplaced label of "depravity", so you can't claim this doesn't happen.

    The founders gave the government limited powers for a reason. The governments of their time took every mile they could from every inch they could force their subjects to give, and the governments of our time are no different.

  • by GumphMaster ( 772693 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @07:39PM (#44313235)

    what is wrong with you? this would be a clear violation of the site owner's rights of freedom of speech in the US. the site owner didnt commit any crimes, he simply uploaded a video of it to his own site, which is protected under free speech.

    So the United States has no laws prohibiting the posting of child porn or bestiality images? After all, the web site operator didn't rape the child, bugger the sheep, etc. he or she is simply exercising "free speech." Nonetheless, he or she is still accountable to the law for disseminating the child porn because it encourages the producers. Posting a murder video might be notionally legal in the US under purported "freedom of speech" but that does not remove the possibility that the law would take interest.

  • by Ardyvee ( 2447206 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @07:56PM (#44313361)

    To be honest, while I wouldn't want to see whatever it is that was posted (though I might so I am able to see just where it is regarding to what I allow myself to watch, and to be able to have better opinions), I think that there may be legitimate reasons to post something like this. People may want to expose themselves to this kind of content so that they know just what kind of thing humanity is capable. They might be interested in it as a source of ideas for a book, a movie or a TV series (you know, there is a whole genre around criminals and what they do). Or simply to raise awareness to those that want to listen.*

    To be honest, while there are things I wouldn't mind not seeing again and not thinking "somewhere this exists", I believe in freedom of speech. If I were to vote, I would vote against banning such content (unless given a very damn good reason, besides people not liking it). And on the other hand it is because some content exist that I know some of my limits -- what I'm capable of watching and enjoying and what I decide I would rather simply close.

    Now, I don't know what the parents may be thinking. Probably something along the lines of "why don't you respect the memory of my child" or something (assuming of course they are against this, which I don't know). But I have no idea how showing the video of the murder is a disrespect if it is what happened and in no way altered. Because that's what happened. Unless they are asking to respect what they want to remember of their child (which doesn't include getting killed), in which case I will disagree with them and disregard their request.

    *I'll admit I can't really come up with any reason somebody might want to watch it, or share it (assuming what I've read is accurate). What I came up with sounds shitty to me, too. But I reject "disgusting and unnecessary" or damaging to the family as valid reason to BAN the sharing of such content. If individuals want to take into account those reasons, they are free to do so. If I'm ever found in that position, I'll then face the question whether or not I care enough about the family of the victim and whether or not I'm okay with sharing it with others (I would not deny access to those that explicitly asked and I deemed as valid [so no 12 year old kids asking for it will get it, I'm not that crazy]). Or at least I expect to be able to make that decision instead of being forced by law to act a certain way.

  • by Zynder ( 2773551 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:28PM (#44313571)
    That is one of the classic continuum fallacies. Because the gender was wrong, then the whole argument must be wrong. Also closely related is that the debater has gotten one fact wrong therefore you cannot believe anything he says. These techniques are used when the argument itself is just so damned airtight that you have nothing to refute it. So you ridicule it (ad hominem), appeal to authority (you got it right not the debater so he's wrong on all accounts), and if you have the position/authority should those 2 not work, you appeal to the stick (It's this way and if you don't like it I'll kick your ass). Basically the OP has a solid argument that can't really be refuted by anything other than "I watch that stuff cause I want to." An argument why any of that gore would be beneficial just really can't be made. Someone prove me wrong! I bet all you can come up with is "cause I want to." If this data was not on a public facing goretube website one could make an argument that it beneficial for educating interested parties like forensic analysts, biologists, or a future criminal wanting to know exactly how to kill someone. However, this is right out in the open like youtube. This is merely entertainment of a horribly disturbing nature. I agree with OP. If this stuff gets your dick hard, you got some problems. You should seek therapy.

    Now in before the haters: I understand that "cause I want to" is a reason which is your right (at least in the USA). I defended that right for you (you're welcome). However I will not accept it as being logically valid nor even worthy of any kind of debate because it adds no insight into why you hold your position. I bet plenty of you growing up had your parents tell you "because" isn't an answer. It's not and neither was "cause I want to."

    note: the use of you/your/you're is not directly referring to Motard. I agree with him.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:58PM (#44313779)

    This might sound crass, posting anon.

    I watched the phone-line guy video where he was beheaded by terrorists during the Iraq war. I didn't enjoy what I saw, but doing so seemed important to help understand the pit of depravity that humans can succumb to.

    As a young teenager (far to young, but I had free reign at the video rental place via a signed paper saying I could rent all but the porno - which I found in my dads sock drawer...), I watched the Faces of Death series of videos. The money brain scene is fixed in my mind, as is the execution by firing squad. One can learn a lot about being decent and civil from scenes of gross violence.

    I believe that grotesque images of violence and even death should be seen, in order to help us understand how precious life is. It is easy to take a life, and to leave the path of despair it causes.

    What about war footage, showing soldiers killed and maimed on the battlefield (WW2, Korea). What of the numerous videos of US helicopters fire bombing villages during Vietnam? The death isn't obvious in the fireballs. Seeing death up front is much more powerful. The images of Hiroshima children are chilling, but very important: []

    Savage acts require savage justice. But making savage acts available for viewing, not so much in my opinion. Reality, as horrific as is can be, is just reality. Choose not to watch if you wish, but understand, that for some, it is a learning experience about evil.

    My eyes and person have witnessed events worse than death from the pain and torture of a terrible disease. Death would have been, and eventually was, welcomed. It should have come sooner, and would have, if not for the modern medical system and it's "miracles".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:26PM (#44313931)

    because it encourages the producers

    Who cares?

    Please start by defining "porn" and "child", and then explain why producing "child porn" is bad, granted that no "children" get abused in the process. If a child is OK with it, why do you bother? Here, I can help you with "child": in US, it's anyone under about 18. So if you possess or share a picture of you and your wife having consensual sex, both of you 17, then you should rot in prison. Right?

    Now imagine you are 10. Would you rather get beaten and raped by your older brother (no filming), or have a picture of you touching wieners posted on the Internet (no abuse involved)? This is not even comparable: kids will do the latter just for fun. Or would, if they were not scared by the sheer amount of punishment from the law. At the same time, humans were abusing children sexually since before they could write or draw. Instead of cracking down on people who actually abuse children, you tacitly advocate imprisoning artists and wankers who wouldn't hurt a fly. Instead of allowing people to have an honest discussion about sexual abuse within families (which is the majority of all sexual abuse), you want it censored. All of this tells me that you don't really give a rat's ass about children being abused. All you want is to maintain your puritanical community standard, and if the children get raped not on camera, you are perfectly content. 'Cause if you can't see it, it's not happening, right?

  • by sjwt ( 161428 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @10:32PM (#44314305)

    What's worse is it seems the submitter for the post has been brain washed into believing all this 'Land of the free and home of the brave' rubbish.

    32nd on the list of free speech for the press. []

    Sure you still have some of your citizens rights, but it seems you are losing more and more every day, the government now can and will spy on you with out warrant, letting the ppl know about this lands you with ironically charges of being a spy..

God helps them that themselves. -- Benjamin Franklin, "Poor Richard's Almanac"