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."
Re:Mob rule (Score:4, Interesting)
Politicians leading mobs
Eric Holder didn't get that memo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/17/justice-dept-seeks-public-feedback-on-zimmerman-case/?tid=pm_politics_pop [washingtonpost.com]
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (Score:3, Interesting)
The comment has no less validity if you remove the letters "wo" from the last paragraph. There is no legitimate reason to post something like this. It's disgusting and unnecessary. Anyone who has a desire to look at it is the sort of person who should seek professional help.
I'm Canadian, not a huge fan of the current political climate in Canada, but I can't get outraged over this. Though I will say the guy who's been arrested is a bit of an idiot for saying that Canada is a 'police state' for having confiscated computer equipment directly related to what he's been charged with... Call it a 'police state' for how the G20 was handled, not because you went and got yourself arrested for doing something that is quite likely illegal and definitely disgusting.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's interesting that the first three replies to this post zoomed in on a one word factual error that isn't really of any consequence with regard to the rest of the three paragraph comment. It's like they think they're going for the win.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Fuck censorshp. A lot of stuff on the Internet can torment people for years. It's not like anything else gets deleted from the Internet.
This is about one group of people how another group of people can be allowed to think. If you don't like Gore then don't go to the site.
No problem when the BBC or CBC show such content (Score:0, Interesting)
One rule for State sanctioned 'journalists', another for everyone else. Kids at school can be FORCED to watch films showing Nazi atrocities, because it is deemed helpful to the current nation of Israel, but the same schools would face prosecution if they attempted to show film footage of atrocities carried out daily by Israel against all they label as 'sub-Human' in places like Gaza.
Who is to judge when evidence from true crime scenes crosses the line? You will notice there is never a universal ban based on assessment of content. No, the bans are political based on the background of the 'victim' and the background of the 'aggressor'. Gore is fine if it encourages the viewer to support racist violence by Israel, or to cheer the wars waged by the UK and USA in Libya, Syria or Iraq.
Journalists working for Murdoch's rags in the USA and UK are the first to press for punishment and jail for any ordinary citizen in possession of the 'wrong' kinds of true crime videos. For instance, the UK and USA provided their terrorists currently destroying Syria with chemical weapons and the training to use them. But these terrorists have a nasty habit of shooting everything they do on cell phones, immediately providing proof of the true nature of the conflick in Syria. It is rather annoying for the warmonger Obama to have his plans thwarted when he promised to destroy the Syrian government (including all civil servants and their families) if the regime appeared to use chemical weapons in its defence (as the USA would do- why else do you think Obama has the biggest collection of chemical weapons on the planet?)
The USA, UK, Canada and Australia would love the sheeple to finally accept the concept of officially licensed 'journalists' so that the concept of citizen journalists could be exterminated once and for all. Unfortunately for the elites, English speaking nations have no tradition of state-sanctioned journalism (that the sheeple are supposed to be aware of anyway). The method in the English -speaking nations is to allow media giants to emerge that are owned/run by people belonging to the elite. Before the days of the Internet, this scheme worked brilliantly. The price of competing with the media giants was far too high, so citizen journalists could make only the smallest splash.
The (ex?-)nazi, George Soros, is at the forefront to outlaw all influential Internet opinions not directly under his or mainstream control. He directly funds attacks on all those who dare to oppose propaganda operations by the mainstream media, or his pseudo-alternative mock-left-wing sites. Soros funded political support for legislation in the UK that would force ALL 'journalistic' activity (save for websites that ONLY contain content from a single named individual- comments included) to be required to join an incredibly expensive 'insurance' scheme to ensure funds for libel actions.
George Soros is able to smirk and say "I haven't banned citizen journalism in the UK- I've just forced all journalists to be responsible- and if you can't afford to be responsible, that isn't my problem". In the UK, truth is NOT a defence against libel actions. UK courts, with the full backing of Soros, found a twitter that stated "why is McAlpine trending :)" to be libellous. The named politician was a famous supporter of convicted serial child rapist Graham Ovenden, and collected images made of the rape victims by the painter. But the truth is no defence in a UK libel court. McAlpine claimed his reputation had been damaged, and that was certainly true. Ovenden's intimate friendship with McAlpine and other senior members of the British establishment ensured that Ovenden's lifetime commitment to the worst forms of child abuse failed to gain any jail time, even when the court found him guilty of such sickening crimes.
Jimmy Savile's (one of the world's worst child abusers) friends, including the Prince of Wales (yes, that freak who would be King should the Queen die or abdicate, which is why she is determined to outlive Char
Showing the video is a crime because it is theft (Score:4, Interesting)
Would this be covered under obscenity laws? (Score:4, Interesting)
If this were to occur in the US, would a prosecution under obscenity laws be legal?
The bar is high, but compared with other things subject to the law, (i.e. the "Miller" test applied to pornography) this would seem to cross it.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (Score:4, Interesting)
The burden of proof required on your typical internet message board, much less Slashdot, is pretty low.
You seem to assume a lot. It is up to the readers (including myself) to establish their own threshold for the level of proof.
Or, he could be a sick fuck in it for the lulz.
I dunno.
Even assuming the above is correct:
* did this sick fuck commit murders to fuel his site?
* does anyone have the right to condemn a person on the "potential misuse of the information"?
* even accepting morals into equation (who's morals?)... anyway: should a person be condemned because the society is "too weak in the moral sense"? I mean, what's the conceptual difference between this and prosecuting Galileo because he kept on publicly saying the Earth is moving and endangering the "good faith" of the society of his time?
Not so fast (Score:5, Interesting)
there IS a direct correlation between child pornography and child abuse (the first CANNOT exist without the other)
Generally true but not always.
The newly-married under-18 teenagers filming their honeymoon "in detail" are creating child pornography if they do it in America.
Ditto the 13 year old guy playing with himself in front of a mirror with a camera, purely for his own amusement.
Granted, these examples should never justify "making child porn legal" but they do justify creating the "it was my own body, I have a right to record it" absolute defense and an "it was my boy/girlfriend and he/she said yes" mitigation-defense for people close in age that would turn the charge into a non-sex-crime misdemeanor.