> They are re-victimized when the videos are shared
> Same thing with murder videos
Philosophically, can a dead person be re-victimized?
> Same thing with murder videos
Philosophically, can a dead person be re-victimized?
Most people would be offended if I pissed on their mother's grave.
Let's say they can't be re-victimized and their families aren't new victims. There's still the argument that it encourages more killings.
I believe that videos like the Christchurch massacre should be banned. That video was made by the murderer and I'm sure was intended to bring fear to that community and encourage more acts of violence by other murderous weirdos.
A surveillance video or a video made by a victim or bystander is different. I don't think those videos should necessarily be shared, but if they're not made by the perpetrator or shared to try to bring support to the preparator, then yeah it's probably newsworthy. Still, the victims' families should be taken into consideration. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be scrolling through Twitter and come across a video of someone you know being murdered.
Maybe so, but I don't want you in charge of determining my feelings on the matter, and I want to be subject to your censorious ideas even less. We may agree on many things, but inevitably we'll disagree on others and then my life becomes worse because of your judgement. Just leaving it alone is probably the least harmful thing.
In any case, the general idea of banning access to and possession or distribution of evidence of crime creates an insane power imbalance that I don't think can ever be justified, unfortunately, by the obviously extremely unfortunate things you mention above.
.. and people have been shot dead by guns.
Many people feel that these are arguments for 'banning' (making illegel) harrassment and murder rather than videos and guns.