The video of the 757s hitting the WTC isn't purged from the internet, why should this video be?
The world is dark and full of terrors (but getting better every day), and sticking our heads in the sand doesn't change that.
The world is dark and full of terrors (but getting better every day), and sticking our heads in the sand doesn't change that.
Relevant quote: "Previously we have risked the ire of viewers by refusing to show the glossy promo videos for ISIS. The ones shot on DSLR's, with depth of field, careful framing, and murders stage managed for the camera. Whilst we may carry media showing the most terrible of events we don't want to be a vehicle of choice for those who carry these events out. This is a very important distinction for us."
Christchurch is grainy helmet cam. Not highly produced propaganda.
I've no interest in seeing the video, but I understand they marked the ammunition clips with messages seen on camera. Several have been quoted in reporting. That sounds very like a deliberate attempt to make a propaganda piece of the footage. I would hope that Liveleak would rule out carrying it on the same justification.
Phone cam footage from a victim or innocent bystander is far easier to consider documentation, and make a case it should be seen.
It does not have a message. It doesn't function as propaganda.
Why did he film it? why publish a rant? why write things on his guns?
to try to push his shitville excuse of a view. To embolden other shitists. Do sow fear and anger into the non-shit.
I'm not interested in this video or the man's opinions.
But I strongly believe that the footage should be available so people can see just how horrifying it was.
If you want people to take terrorism seriously, they need to really really understand how terrifying it is. Names and numbers don't do that. Watching another human go from walking and talking to stone cold dead in an instant does do that.
explain yourself!
But to me, it's utility as documentation of a tragedy outweighs it's utility as propaganda.
But to me, it's utility as documentation of a tragedy outweighs it's utility as propaganda.
What an absurd thing to say about a terrorists propaganda video.
But the video has a message and is part of a message that he wanted to send by the act itself. The message is his manifesto that was published along side with it. Also the guns in the video have a message. It's hard to read, but that was solved by news media that gladly published it in its entirety.
Perfect example, but not of what you're claiming. Police bodycam footage is frequently released in partial, edited form as propaganda. When it doesn't appear to exonerate the cops, police departments often fight its release.
If it was an opinion-free, propaganda-free raw unedited video of a newsworthy event that was filmed in a public place, then it probably shouldn't be banned—though publishers should still act responsibly if the material contains deeply offensive or distressing material, or if it has serious privacy implications.
And that's just a proposed set of principles I came up with after three minutes of consideration—I'm sure with an extra 15 minutes we could come up with something even better. Point is, this isn't difficult. The fact that there are no bright clear lines doesn't preclude us as a society from drawing a line somewhere.
I'll also note that ISIS does a lot more editing and commentary to slant the content in their favor than this guy did. About all this guy did was make meme references... I can see an argument that this is quite different.
Humans are largely visual creatures. If we don’t witness something, we have a tendency to treat it as less ‘real’. Doubly so when it happens half a world away: atrocities and their victims become almost theoretical.
Actually witnessing a video record changes our perception dramatically. The victims cease to be faceless ‘others’, and we receive a somber reminder that a maniac slaughtered husbands, wives, sons, and daughters—real people that could be your friends, family, or neighbors. The sense of tragedy and the casual brutality of it sinks in, and we are forced to acknowledge the evil among us.
In the U.S., where so many of these tech companies reside, we have become so bitterly polarized that many among us demonize nearly half our fellow countrymen on the basis of their political affiliations. At times like this, we could be coming together in our mutual disgust over this atrocity. Seeing it for ourselves is, perhaps, less important than seeing that those we condemn politically react with the same humanity that we do.
In a time when some people seem to honestly believe that “those [other half of the country] want to destroy everything everything I care about” we could use a reminder that, hey, we’re all people, and none of us deserve to die like that. And maybe then we could start working together to build a world that isn’t so conducive to hate.
All the talk about social media is just a distraction for the real issues that politicians don't want to face: gun laws. We probably shouldn't be selling crazy people weapons of mass destruction. But sure, blame Facebook for letting people post videos...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-16/nz-threatens-10-ye...
Shakespeare's typing monkeys come to mind.
On the other hand, perhaps if we think about everything at a more reasonable level, we can see why some digital things should be illegal, just as some physical things should be illegal.
What's next, illegal source code?
Maybe you should just start with illegal thoughts right off the bat?
I find that these kind of reductive arguments floated for digital subjects fall apart when you remove the computer from the equation.
The “illegal numbers” concept is something I find interesting. Just because a certain number can be used to decrypt BluRays, it’s illegal
128 bits is about the threshold where a "number" stops behaving like our intuition of a number, and starts being rare enough that you won't arrive at an "illegal" number by counting or chance, i.e. it is now a "file" for all practical purposes: https://qntm.org/number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine
> The following pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was made by Justice Sutherland in Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926):
> [T]he terms of a penal statute [...] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties… and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.
It also isn't "purged from the internet".
But here's 65+ people vaporizing from 18 different angles. On YouTube. These are not different. They are footage of a terrorist attack.
It does document the attacks, that much is true. And in that regard it is the same as footage of 9/11 – but beyond that there is a distinction here.
Don’t be confused by simplification. Do take into account context, intent and author.
(That said, I do think that you can question whether it was wise to play video of the planes flying into WTC basically on repeat during those days.)
There's no other way to truly understand what happened unless you see it. Regardless of who filmed it.
However, I do question the need for everyone to watch the video to understand what happened. That doesn’t really seem to follow for me.
I'm not sure how honest you're being with your comment but there's clearly a line where news reporting jumps from showing something to communicate the facts to something that is gratuitous + glorifying the guilty + insulting to the victims + traumatising to family and friends.
It's not easy to describe exactly where that line is but you'd have to be completely tone deaf or trolling to make such a simple comparison between these videos.
The video of the execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém in Vietnam was huge in turning opinion even harder against war.
The best way to prevent propagandistic spin is to make sure the raw footage is available.
People need stark reminders what trillions in military funding is buying them. It's exactly that. They need to see what lax gun laws enable, what warmongering is, what war is.
They're not now and I think we don't value life as much because most of us don't know how abrupt and cold death actually is.
Doesn't NZ have strict gun laws?
That said, it is interesting to me how platforms are going to deal with transformative "fair use" cases. The obvious scenario is news coverage which excerpts/screenshots the video. But I've also seen clips of the raw footage being shared by Muslim/Arabic-speaking groups on Twitter, seemingly in the context of wanting to point out to their community the horrific reality they face. It being Twitter, the posts are visible to the world even if it's meant for a specific audience. I didn't bookmark the tweet, but I assume these videos got taken down. But I wonder if the users faced different sanctions. They are significantly different in situtation than those sharing the video to glorify the shooter.
There’s a reason that isn’t a defense, and I hope you already understand why that is.
1) That probably is a valid defense in some countries
2) It is completely reasonable to ask for an articulate link between a crime and some sort of victim, otherwise the crime shouldn't exist. "It is obvious" is only for crimes with a very obvious victim.
For child pornography, I assume the link is because people might be selling it for cash which is harder to trace and collecting it might be supporting a community through, say, ad revenue. Because while it is sick, I don't see how curating a private, personal collection could feasibly cause harm to anyone and hence it seems like a waste of money to prosecute without some sort of connection to how it is profiting CP providers.
I've thought that the countries that criminalise cartoon depictions of child porn have gone too far. It may be obscene, but possession shouldn't be a crime. Literally nobody could be suffering from it.
2.) Your opinion is at odds with the laws of virtually every country on Earth. Countries that can’t agree on things as simple as diet, or whether gay people should be allowed to live still manage to agree on this.
2) I doubt you've actually read my opinion properly, it was that the link between crime and victim should be articulated on request. That is going to be a very popular opinion in the civilized world.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography
I’m speaking to the usual exception “online libertarians” tend to accept, and pointing out the hypocrisy there. Of course adults being raped or murdered is equivalent, but this is a limited format for communication and my desire to cover every possible permutation is precisely 0.
What standing do they have to prevent distribution of the video?
That's not what standing means[1]. At least in the US, if the video was recorded legally[2], there's nothing you can really to do prevent publication of it. The laws are stricter if you're using it for commercial purposes, but it's not the case here.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
[2] You could argue that the shooting was illegal, so therefore the recording was also illegal, but that's a stretch.
because I'm not a new zealand lawyer, but both US and new zealand uses common law, so I'm using that as a point of reference. I'm not trying to say "it's x in the US therefore it's x in new zealand". If you can find an authoritative source that confirms what the legal status is, feel free to post it.
>their requests for cooperation.
The people posting/sharing those videos aren't going to comply with nicely worded "requests for cooperation". If they want something taken down, they'll need assistance of the legal system.
>the event was in a private place of worship and not a public landmark
The relevant doctrine here would be expectation of privacy[1]. You're right that it's not a public landmark, but I argue it's still a public place considering that there are dozens of strangers around and you can come and go as you please (they don't seem to check membership), thus you don't really have any expectation that it's private.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
>there were minors in the footage
There is a legal doctrine that gives special treatment to minors?
>Last but not least, Facebook specifically sells ads on their pages
This could work, although you could argue that the poster himself isn't making any money so it's okay. Also, if this did work, I'd expect way more public freakout videos to be taken down off video platforms by their subjects, which doesn't seem to be the case right now. At the very least you could sidestep this issue by hosting it offsite or via torrent/ipfs.
>In addition, the footages being disseminated are technically illegal copies.
This is only true because the author hasn't yet given explicit permission for people to use it. He's alive in jail right now, so this could easily be rendered moot by him proclaiming (via a lawyer) that he releases the video to the public domain (which I'm sure he would do). Even if he didn't give permission (eg. he got killed), copyright infringement is a civil matter, so only the author (or his estate) can go after violators. The state sure wouldn't be able to send takedown requests using this method.
Yes it is.
> What if any of the victims in the video didn’t want the video to be disseminated?
They don't get to decide that.
> So we are OK with corporate cease and desist letters on youtube.
No
That's different though. This video has been released by the perpetrator. Do you think beheadings videos released by ISIS should be easily accessed by anyone on Facebook?
Peta wouldn't release "inside the factory farm" footage if it was an effective way to galvanize an audience.
But showing this to your aunt who's wishy washy about gun control will probably disgust her into action.
Edit: Or perhaps the "implicit" part of your post is that you're referring to the ISP incident in NZ, and not Facebook?
That 757 video was played on repeat for weeks on all of the major channels in 2001. Hundreds of people turning into a fireball over and over.
It made it real for us.
By hiding the video from ChristChurch, people have to imagine how awful the event was. And they'll fall back to the stylized Hollywood notions of violence as a reference point. There are no heroic close-ups in this footage (I found a copy).
If you want people to get upset about this and take action, you show them the truth. It would repulse almost everyone.
So, since a very very small part of Internet consumers venture out of the big social and old media sites, by not hosting it there they will never see it.
Streisand effect notwithstanding, this is effectively tempting everyone with an ounce of curiosity to seek out the dark corners of the internet that they may have never had a reason to visit before.