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."
Summay is incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
It was used against a special fx pro, for an over realistic gore site, but it failed : http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12/23/remy-couture_n_2355922.html
Re:Summay is incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
Because the GP is referring to "The charge against the operator is quite rare and no-one so far remembers it ever being used before" from TFSummary, and brings us notice of a similar case with the same charge. "Informative" is the correct mod in this case.
And the torment of her family and loved ones? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (Score:4, Informative)
The victim was a guy, for what it's worth.
This all sounds familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a difference between created fiction and voyeurism of real human suffering.
Yeah, I gotta put snuff in the same box as child porn. Repulsive when created by the pen and paper and worthy of social ostracism; utterly indefensible when involving real acts occurring to real people and worthy of prison time.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So how does this instruct us on viewing/filming a murder? Because I think that's what we're talking about here.
Re: (Score:2)
but there IS a direct correlation between child pornography and child abuse (the first CANNOT exist without the other).
Note that you yourself are not making the claim that the relationship also works in reverse - because it, well, doesn't. So you can remove CP, but child abuse will remain.
And then of course there's the whole issue of consensual filmed sex identified as CP, and of rendered / drawn videos etc. More recently, in Russia, the local lawmakers have ruled that all hentai is CP - how about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Being entertained by violence is not the same thing as disseminating *real* violence for entertainment, which in turn makes a market for actually hurting people.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if the video game dev's promised to kill a kitten in a poor country people -would- be just as outraged. Sorry, public opinion is against you. Its part of the sad double edged sword of group morality.
Re: (Score:3)
Not responding to the parent post, but I think there is a valid argument that the operator of the site hosting Luka's videos is guilty of collaborating with the killer. He didn't plan the murder, but he is acting as an instrument of Magnotta by delivering the infamy that was Magnotta's goal.
The mature and humane response would have been to say, "Hey Luka. You k
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:This all sounds familiar (Score:4, Informative)
Icky topic (Score:2)
I find the idea extremely 'icky', to say the least, but it depends where you are. While Canada has different rules and limitations, if I remember right the supreme court shot down banning 'artificial' CP. Rules can be different on possession if you've been convicted, are out on parole, and the restriction is part of your parole terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (Score:4, Informative)
[snip]
The Framers had clear reasons for promoting freedom of speech...
[snip]
Canada. Not USA. Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
It has no value whatsoever to shock and delight those deranged enough to view a heinous act.
...
But they did not create freedom of speech to promote sheer depravity.
...
showing a murder for fun.
You seem to imply a certain intent. Can you prove it?
Re: (Score:2)
The burden of proof required on your typical internet message board, much less Slashdot, is pretty low. But we can look at the tape in this case....
From the TFA...
Marek told the Ottawa Citizen he believed “people need to know what really is going on in their neighbourhoods,” saying: “They could easily walk upon a gruesome accident scene themselves and whom will they blame for being exposed to it then?”
Yes, of course, this is a public service. If I were to take a walk and came acro
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?
Re: (Score:2)
You're equating Galileo with this sick fuck. That's funny.
Re: (Score:2)
You're equating Galileo with this sick fuck. That's funny.
Just in case you did actually miss it and you are not trolling: I'm equating the prosecution of Galileo with the prosecution of this man for reasons of "challenging their society morals".
I'm pretty sure the Inquisition at that time adopted the view of Galileo being a sick fuck that worth punishing for the potential damage his public views might have caused to the society.
Re: (Score:2)
Most morals were established for the betterment of society, and some were established to re-enforce hierarical systems of controling a populace. Those rule may actually of supported society in times where feudal anarchies would've swept over a population, but one would argue that mass education has made such risks in modern cultures rather less worrisome.
Now if you want to argue that society should embrace the notion of recording people as they die, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Why not: Every l
Re: (Score:2)
People have always been and will always be afraid of death, and any overt step toward that bleak realization is going to be a social loser no matter what the social benefits.
* groan *
(would this be a reason the Egyptians still have cojones to fight for what they believe in - even against other Egyptians - while "the free and brave Americans" don't move a muscle at the news NSA knows their every shit? I wonder which of the two would be better for their respective society on medium/longer term?)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, you are equating a prosecution with a prosecution. Nothing more. When it comes to this shit, Galileo would probably say "Hang the fucker." I say that because almost NO ONE - even in our comparatively liberal society of the modern times - would say this guy is in the right.
There's a difference between being rightfully defiant, and just being a dick.
Are you thick? I'm making a parallel between two prosecution on grounds of "challenging the society morals". I can't see how one is good and the other bad.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 fe
This is very different from a Horror Film (Score:2)
We know, when watching a horror film, that real people did not die to make the movie. Showing the death of a real person as "entertainment" is a different matter entirely.
Does it cross the line? I don't know. It would make an interesting test case; if it was porn instead, it would seem to be over the line established in the Miller test.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument holds true for a special effects fest movie or video.
This was neither.
It was video of the aftermath of an actual, honest to God someone died MURDER.
Re: (Score:3)
The "horror" is that the sick and twisted website operator thought the footage "entertaining" and tried to make a profit off it by posting it.
Re: (Score:3)
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 rotton.com 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.
This is a video of a real murder and dismemberment done in the most gruesome way possible. There's no artistic, political, or cultural value in this video, it's just horribly shocking.
It basically comes down to this. If you believe in absolutely unfettered free speech than this video is allowed.
If you believe in any decency restrictions at all, then this video is probably out.
I don't agree with these charges or decency restrictions on speech, though I'd order it pulled on the grounds it shows an actual pers
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of stuff on the Internet can torment people for years. It's not like anything else gets deleted from the Internet.
You say that like it justifies itself instead of the exact opposite.
Re: (Score:3)
Dignity is usually considered a human right. Having people watch someone's murder or rape online would probably be considered to have stripped away that dignity.
Of course it is almost impossible to remove material from the internet, but would you argue that once an image is "out there" that person's dignity is gone and we should do nothing further to try and protect it? I don't think it's a binary thing like that.
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, how I wish I could send you back to the "government of their time" so you could truly appreciate the difference between what we have now and what they had then.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, the "it could always be worse" argument against making the world a better place. Sibling to the "first world problem" quip, where any desire to right wrongs is contested unless circumstances are as dire as they could possibly be. God forbid we actually learn from the lessons taught by other places and other times.
Re: (Score:2)
This from the government that legally sanctions the killing of human beings? Interesting moral pedestal you put the US on...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You're right. If my dad was brutally murdered on video, I would not want everyone in the world gawking at it for a cheap thrill. So has Canada asked youtube to take down all those grisly 9/11 videos [youtube.com] yet? Oh, yeah, forgot... Hipocracy. "We must never forget!" Sick bastards watching people fall to their deaths, over and over again.
Re: (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 confisc
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:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone remember the "Faces of Death" series? Granted, I have not visited this site, nor do I care to, but when I was a young teenager, I do recall having some interest in the gory footage provided in FOD.
Did I derive any value from watching that smut? I'd say that it is quite negligible, but there was in fact some value gained. Similarly, dreams of terrifying situations provide some value to the dreamer simply for the fact that it may prepare them for a terrifying situation in real life some time in t
Re: (Score:3)
Does anyone remember the "Faces of Death" series?
I do, and I watched it out of morbid curiosity, and thought it would be entertaining just like I found violence entertaining in the movies. I came away feeling sickened and depressed, and had no desire to watch any more of it.
Did I derive any value from watching that smut? I'd say that it is quite negligible, but there was in fact some value gained.
There was for me. I was sickened and disgusted by the barbaric tourists bashing a monkey's head at a dinner table so that they could eat its brains. Death by the electric chair seemed cruel and barbaric. Daredevils risking their lives and horrendous injury for the entertainment of the
Re: (Score:2)
What a wonderfully verbose way of saying you have no response.
I salute you, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no legitimate reason to post something like this. It's disgusting and unnecessary.
It might be necessary when we get a bunch of what the Dutch call "goat-wool sock" types that will claim that Magnotta is "actually a victim himself" to visualize what we're actually talking about. The down-playing usually starts immediately after the news breaks. But when Magnotta is locked away for life there's indeed no reason to distribute the video.
If on the other hand, like the Greyhound Bus Beheader and Cannibal [winnipegsun.com] Vincent Lee will, Magnotta gets to go hang out at the beach, it may be time to send a remi
Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no legitimate reason to post something like this. It's disgusting and unnecessary.
That is not for you to decide. And shouldn't be for anyone else to decide either. No person is harmed in this and it's not like the family of the person is being forced to watch at gunpoint. If they don't like it, they can just not go to the website.
Re: And the torment of her family and loved ones? (Score:2)
No person is harmed in this
I'm pretty sure the guy being dismembered world have disagreed. Also this is Canada and we choose to be reasonable about what free speech we allow.
Re: (Score:2)
And your limited experience would be a poor excuse for our society to descend back into brutal depravity.
Al Gore? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I read the headline, the first thing I thought of was Al Gore.
My first thoughts, but then I read TFA.
What about this case was so complicated (Score:2)
that it took more than a year to develop?
Re: (Score:2)
that it took more than a year to develop?
A whole lot of things:
1. As the summary mentioned, the various parts of Jun Li were mailed to political parties and schools, which means that at least some time would have to be taken ensuring everything "matched"
2. At the same time, if I recall, there was another dismembered body (or just regular body) being found in the Montreal area, so the police had to determine whether or not that was tied to the other crime
3. Magnotta fled the country and was eventually caught in Germany (which is an interesting s [theglobeandmail.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The wording of the Montreal Gazette article strongly implied that it was the Marek case that took so long.
Singularly (Score:2, Insightful)
The only people here with corrupt morals are the police and the politicians who passed this law.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't actually have a reason why it's not immoral. Okay.
Also there's a much larger problem with exploiting a murder for entertainment and profit than for any other reason. While other reasons may not be 'good', I'd say that entertainment and profit are the very bottom of that barrel.
Not appropriate?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not appropriate?!? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think the publication ban is relevant here. In practice publication bans only affect the media and don't bother blogs that much, plus the video detailed Magnotta even being identified as the killer.
The site was a really twisted gore website that Magnotta frequented (I recall hearing that he'd freaked out even website members and they'd contacted the police on previous occasions). After Magnotta killed Lin he sent the video to the website of him doing really bad things to the body (I don't think Lin was killed on camera). The operator posted the video and then he (or other site members) contacted the police about the video.
Showing the video is a crime because it is theft (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 fi
Re: (Score:2)
The mere fact that the victim is in the film does not imply that the victim owns the film. The property right argument works the other way: whoever owns the film has the right to share it with others.
There are laws regarding the use of someone's image without a model release, but they aren't based on (or even consistent with) property rights.
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.
Submitter doesn't know his own rights (Score:4, Informative)
You should note that Canada has less free speech than in America (we have 'hate crime laws'),
From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
We have the exact same free speech rights as the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that he doesn't understand the concept of "hate crimes," which are not about speech but motivation.
Re: (Score:3)
You should note that Canada has less free speech than in America (we have 'hate crime laws'),
From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
We have the exact same free speech rights as the US.
Section 1 places some limits on our rights,
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Note that in practice America does the same with their Bill of Rights, which is why child porn is illegal down there.
Just use the alternatives, it's still hosted (Score:2)
The video is still hosted at the alternative sites and the larger more popular sites
http://theync.com/ [theync.com]
http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/ [documentingreality.com]
http://www.ogrishforum.com/ [ogrishforum.com]
and others,
they all still have the video up as well as fresh meat daily :P
This is reality (Score:2)
Grisly, grotesque, dripping reality. It's the thing that science strives to accurately describe.
Reality is a multi-faceted thing, like a diamond.
Reality ranges from whimsical and happy, to joyous, to mournful, to horrific to grisly. The Internet just allows you to see what you previously could not. If you don't want to look at the whole of it, don't. But don't force it to be hidden from the rest of us. That would be deceptive.
There are some very unpleasant truths out there.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it "mob rule" when democratically elected representatives ban something years in advance, then an independant law enforcement agency takes someone to be tried before an independant judiciary for violating it?
Your argument can be equally applied to the enforcement of any law whatsoever as being "mob rule".
the law might be an infringement of the Charter of Rights and could even be overturned by the Supreme Court, but it isn't going to be influenced by the size of mob that shows up at anybody's doorstep
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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:Mob rule (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, actually that email address is active and has been for several days. It was even publicized by the DOJ, almost right after the not-guilty verdict was read.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the whole "morality" thing is bullshit. It seems repulsive and horrible and it grosses me out that people would want to see this kind of shit (I'm sure we all stumbled across things like it in the earlier days of the net) . . . but unless it is violating some sort of privacy or something . . . . I just see it as the cost of a free society. (Yes, I know this is in Canada). In a free society, things are said, presented, and done that can be highly offensive to you and that is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Murder as free speech.
America really has something funny in its water supply.
Re:Things like this... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index [wikipedia.org]
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..
Re: (Score:3)
Murder as free speech. America really has something funny in its water supply.
Electrolytes!
Re: (Score:2)
No more free speech then posting videos of rape and child molestation.
"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them."
I fail to see what opinions and ideas are being communicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Donating money isn't free speech, but preventing people from working together to get a message out interfers with their ability to use their free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Its quite clear Adams & Madison intended for "freedom of the press' to mean much more than the act of pressing ink into paper.
It does. Freedom of the Press also refers to "publication and distribution of information". The medium used is not relevant.
The difference with this case is that it can very easily fail the bad tendency test, and while this is Canada and not the US, I would assume that similar exceptions are made in nearly every modern democracy.
Re:Things like this... (Score:5, Informative)
Key point, though, this isn't in the US, and the laws in Canada don't work the same way. Canadians don't necessarily have the exact same values as Americans, and one of those values is that hate speech is criminal rather than protected. These laws (and related ones) are occasionally controversial, but not nearly to the extent they would be in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Canadians don't necessarily have the exact same values as Americans, and one of those values is that hate speech is criminal rather than protected.
There's a difference between laws and values. I think many Americans would agree that not all American laws reflect values that all American's hold. Similarly, just because Canada has much less protection for freedom of speech in law doesn't mean that Canadians don't value free speech. I'm Canadian, and myself and virtually every other Canadian that I've talked to on this matter hates Canadian hate speech laws and wishes we had the same protection for freedom of speech as America has. Of course, not all
Re:Things like this... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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),
Re: (Score:2)
Beastiality actually is against the law in most U.S. states. It's just that it's never really been perceived as a problem that would need to be dealt with at the federal level.
And, you can't separate morals and 'social order'.
Re:Things like this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The freedom of speech right in the US is not an unlimited right. You'll have to read through 200 years of jurisprudence to find the real limitations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is. Read the Constitution. "Congress shall make no laws..."
It doesn't say "unless what you say hurts someone's feelings, is super gross, is obscene, isn't accepted by your local community, or is inciting hatred/violence/fear/etc".
It's a pretty dangerous thing to be going around trying to convince people that the freedom of speech has "limitations". Only in its application -- not in its spirit (or writing).
This is how we end up with idiots promoting the idea that "well, free speech is really only inte
Re: Things like this... (Score:3)
Pardon my ignorance but.... Isn't there a law against Snowden exercising his free speech rights to disclose what he learned about the NSA?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting glasses you must have.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? Find me any limits written into the document. The only legitimate way to limit speech in the US is to amend the constitution. The process is explicitly written down, in that same constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in it's day, the Stileproject operated from Canada for years and years, and hosted new shocking shit daily. Stile himself checked with authorities and everything was just fine. WTF happened with this site that is so different? Selective enforcement because the site operator is a mouthy prick?
Re: (Score:3)
What happens when a nutbag joins the NSA?
Um, business as usual?
Re: (Score:2)
I never really understood this in the movie. No blood on the ground...they took great care in placing it there in the bed with no obvious clues...I would have thought at least there would have been a foul smell, but...oh well, that's movie magic for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
.I would have thought at least there would have been a foul smell, but...oh well, that's movie magic for ya.
Most cinemas did not have Smell-O-Rama in the '70s. And the head was fresh.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
Oh, wait... Now I I think I'm feeling you, Mr. AC Talibani.
Re: (Score:3)