An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos 400
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.
I've got this (Score:4, Insightful)
An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos
Freedom of speech.
There done. Issue solved. Next?
Re:I've got this (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Keeping truth from the public only helps reinforce ignorance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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?
No I am not, hence why I said they should get the truth. But the fact remains the truth is probably going to damage there freedom more than support it. People really are stupid and while everyone should be informed, you are delusional if you think that them being informed will make for a better rather than a worse situation.
Re:I've got this (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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. "Wel
Re:I've got this (Score:5, Interesting)
"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 (Score:3)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
and on the other end of things, if no one saw it or witnessed it, we would have even more kooks out there claiming it never happened, or it was a planned demo, or (insert loose change "fact" here) than we already do. Heck there are people who to this day dont believe the holocaust was real. well, guess what, it was, and ive seen the gas chambers and crematoriums with my own eyes in germany, dachau to be specific.
Re:I've got this (Score:5, Funny)
Censorship at /., HN, Reddit. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 e
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
wow, seems there is a new definition of speech i was unaware of
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
is what I was responding to. Modding a comment here up or down is not censorship, the post doesnt go away, and I cant speak for everyone but i always browse at -1 looking for such cases that I feel are unjustly modded down.
I getit, i cant tell you how many times i look at my post history and see a list of 5 posts in a row on a topic modded down. its obvious in those cases it is just someone down modding me eit
Re: Censorship at /., HN, Reddit. (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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:I've got this (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.
Re: (Score:2)
..and who says what should and shouldn't be said?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Delusion (Score:4, Interesting)
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:I've got this (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
1st Ammendment (Score:2)
"freedom of speech only applies to government actions."
The Constitution (and its ammenments) apply to government actions, "freedom of speech" is a more general thing.
But I do agree that a website can set its own rules, if news or social media sites don't want to have people post porn, violence or racist shit they don't have to accept everything that is uploaded. And if some islamic terror group wants to host their own blogs showing what they do to non-believers then they'll just have to put up with anti-isl
He didn't say 1st Amendment (Score:2)
Sorry to burst your tea party bubble, but freedom of speech only applies to government actions.
No, the First Amendment only applies to government actions. It may be hard for you to believe, but some of us find virtue in protecting freedom of speech even in cases where the law would let you get away with suppressing it.
Dunno why you'd bring up the tea party or twitter, but it is interesting that this story and last week's twitter story [slashdot.org] both neglected to use the censorship icon.
Summary of the Video (Score:3)
http://news.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
You've got nothing. (Score:2)
Freedom of speech.
There done. Issue solved. Next?
Not so fast.
Shouting out "Freedom of speech!" to abort all thought and argument about the meaning and limits of free speech is the oldest and most subtle enemy of free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
I think when 'freedom of speech' is used to justify the public dissemination of videos of a terrified human being being burned alive in a cage, it deserves to be examined a bit more closely. I don't think you've 'got this' at all.
And of course, terrorists aren't trying to remove freedom - they're trying to distract you from the fact that there's only actually a small number of them in a country quite a long way away. They're trying to terrify you. Which, if you keep on allowing their videos to be kept onlin
Re: (Score:2)
So the freedom of speech of the terrorists who made those videos trumps the right to privacy of the families of the victims now?
America has become very screwed up since 9/11 in more ways than one.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a free speech issue, since this isn't the government censoring anything, but rather privately-owned news and video sites deciding not to host such videos.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I've got this (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 s
Re: I've got this (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I've got this (Score:4, Insightful)
"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: (Score:2, Flamebait)
That's what fairy tales are for. Shielding your kids from reality just turns them into weak, spineless passive aggressive adults. You're the typical parent who thinks it's everyone else's job to shield whatever it is you don't like from your kids.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Teaching a child about people burning other people alive isn't as easy as it sounds.
Handsel & Gretel?
Re: (Score:2)
in the old days, we used to do some really bad things for really wrong reasons. we even accused people of being witches and burned them for it. Sadly today, there are still people out there who think its ok to do these things, we call them islamic extremists.
see??? not that hard
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 whil
Re: I've got this (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: I've got this (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
...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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
About Time (Score:2, Insightful)
Somewhere, hopefully in Nirvana, a self-immolating monks nods in approval.
Re: (Score:2)
a self-immolating monks
The many merge into one.
Privacy..respect... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
And how would you meaningfully do that, when every other media is publishing the same story naming the pilot being burned alive? Add 2+2. For example I saw the video of the execution - murder is too kind a word - of Ahmed Merabet [independent.co.uk], how could you not end up knowing who he is? While I sure you mean well, I think you're asking for something that isn't practically possible.
Re: (Score:2)
re: "isn't practically possible"
That may be the case - and social media/the internet at large may need to be part of a broader solution to help provide privacy for those individuals who are subject to this type of horror, but for an American news agency or even social media site to 'allow' these types of things, I'm saying, they should be forced to, by law, censor the individuals just as they would an American. Sure, there will still be lots of people who get ahold of an uncensored version or whatever -- bu
Attention: Media (Score:5, Insightful)
Free Speech or Die (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
THIS x 1000. Wish I had mod points right now.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod points, I'd mod this up. Excellently said!
They should ALWAYS be shown (Score:2)
Anything else sugar-coats the truth. You can't have real progress in anything without knowing the truth. As the old saying goes, know the truth and the truth shall set you free.
Waterboarding.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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/... [theospark.net]
Oddly enough (Score:5, Insightful)
meh whatever (Score:2)
Don't watch if you don't want to watch (Score:2)
As someone who has managed to avoid watching the video of the Jordanian pilot being intentionally burned to death, I thought I would share my approach, which didn't involve removing it from the internet. I did not click, and I don't watch Fox News. Actually, I don't watch any mainstream TV news; I listen to the radio and read online sites run by newspapers (the Guardian, mainly) and other organizations (Pro Publica).
This has saved me enormous amounts of time, and spared me from having to tut-tut when TV n
The arguement (Score:2)
If this article is supposed to be an argument for publishing it is unconvincing. Note I am not saying that publishing is wrong, just that this would lose at debate club.
Why? He has duty to be informed backwards. We hardly need to be more informed about the horrors perpetrated by ISIS. Our networks have no problem publishing that stuff 24 hours a day. If we were talking the duty to be informed seriously we need to be informed about the horrors WE are perpetrating, but FOX certainly isn't interested in that.
American Exceptionalists are precious.... (Score:2)
.....but the freaking out over one Jordanian pilot takes the cake. If you don't remember the phosphorous dumped on Fallujah, how about the tons of napalm dropped over Vietnam?
Re: (Score:2)
Live in ignorance, die from ignorance (Score:2)
Regardless facts and the truth trump the need to protect the fainting goats of the human species from their tendency to swoon.
It's not easy (Score:2)
Being free citizens isn't supposed to be comfortable. It involves hard choices about serious issues. To pre-filter the information provided to citizens based on what *you* think they can handle is as patronizing as it is misguided.
As Twain once said something like, "censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it."
Is it unpleasant? Yes. If you can't bear to watch it, don't watch it. But understand that it will take people who are willing to see it for what it is to really u
allow 'pull' but don't 'push' (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Not just that, the 'caliph' of ISIS - Abu Baqr al-Baghdadi - was a US POW from 2005-2009. He was released, and went on to become the leader of ISIS, and now claims supreme leadership of all the world's 1.8B Muzzies. While his state exhibits Islam in all its gory glory.
But never mind all that. Why not bring up 'Abu Ghraib' so that we can have a field day w/ the moral equivalence sweepstakes?
Re: (Score:2)
Dresden.
I mean, I know it was a long time ago, but I think it counts. Also - I would imagine it unlikely that none of the civilian casualties of the current round of US 'wars' were burned alive.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Why do people want them down? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
FTFY (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that showing videos with the gruesome truth is perfectly fine - with the appropriate warnings.
What I don't think is fine is violating people's privacy just because they're not Americans and subject to the same privacy 'rights' under US law, and being allowed to identify such people in such a terrible and horrific way on the news is sensational voyeurism at BEST, just sensationalism for the most viewers tuning in. I'm of course guessing that these 'news' agencies didn't contact the victim's family an
Why do people want them down? Easy answer. (Score:3)
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 administratio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who gets to pick what that "standard" is? The censors get to pick. What if they are the worst perpetrators of discrimination?
The better solution is not have censorship in the first place, and have the ability to respond to people behaving poorly.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Greed, corporate control of countries via treaties and futures markets. Deliberate lack of distribution of wealth.