What's the difference between a mosque shooting video and a cp video from a "freedom of speech" point of view? - One is perfectly acceptable to host in the name of free speech while the other must be purged with fire. Why not purge both?

[Mysterious Capitalist]

Greetings

The other day I was watching the Nick Rekieta video featuring @Null about the hosting of the mosque shooting on KF and the subsequent world community reaction to it.

At one point, I can't remember at what point in the video, the ethics (or lack thereof) of hosting this kind of video against cp was brought up and both Nick and Null agreed on the point that cp is "too far" when it comes to freedom of speech and should never be hosted (or something along those lines), but I could hear in their tone how they were struggling to come up on an "objective" difference between a shooting video and cp, simply laughing off the notion that they're very similar and quickly moving on.

And yet, I fail to see how those are so inherently different: they are both material that feature human suffering for the viewer's "pleasure" (and I mean it in the loosest of terms), they are both illegal, they are both very painful to the victims (both in the video and their surviving families/friends). And these are just the points that come at the top of my head.

In fact, I can argue that a shooting video has more suffering on the simple notion that more people become victims, on a strict numerical scale that doesn't take the value of human life into consideration. But even if you want to take it into consideration and argue that children suffering is worse that adult suffering, how many people have to die before they "outweigh" the suffering of one child? Would the video of hundreds of people being executed at the same time under some backwater third world regime be as despised and banned as cp? If yes, why? If not, why not? Would changing the number of victims change your opinion? Would it change if it was the video of 50 raped adults versus the video of 1 killed child? Can you even do such a "calculation"?

I can concede that, at least, a shooting video can be formative to LEOs to prevent or be better prepared against future shootings, but this is not really a "freedom of speech" argument. Maybe I'm not seeing something obvious here; I refuse to watch videos of human suffering so maybe I lack some kind of insight about it or it might skew my view about this kind of content.

And so I ask, in one of the last bastions of free speech on the Internet (I don't feel this is hyperbole lately), why don't we purge both as a despicable product of human evilness? If not, where do we draw the line and why there specifically on objective terms?

(I also want to specify that I'm not even considering the possibility of "elevating" cp as a category of stuff protected by free speech, only to "downgrade" other forms of snuff media to "not worth saving/consuming")

Thanks

Spoiler: P.S.

I hope the post didn't come out as too autistic, but every once in a while I like to challenge my perspective of what seems "obvious" as a mental exercise. I'll also probably be put on some list because of this post but whatever.

 

[Null]

Child pornography creates a black market for child sexual exploitation in countries with weak governments that cannot protect children.
Violent videos do no such thing and do not have such a market.

 

[Clop]

The difference is the marketplace. One illegal content persists because there's a market of sick fucks gaining money from it which makes them produce more of it, the other is showing the events that unfolded. If a shooter video manages to sprout an industry of insane fucksticks shooting people and recording it for profit, then we'll talk.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

There's no reason to actually watch a CP video. Knowing that the video was made is enough, there's no reason to know the details. On the other hand, knowing what actually went down during a shooting is important. And hell, look at the conspiratards we've attracted with a video of the entire thing happening free to view, imagine how bad people would sperg if there were no videographic proof (full disclosure, I haven't actually watched the video cause I don't have the stomach for it)

 

[LinuxVoid]

Suffering on tape has nothing to do with wether a video is banned or not. There are many mainstream videos/pictures which express a lot more suffering (fabricated or real), which will never be banned. There is nothing wrong with capturing people during an act of suffering.

 

[Piss Clam]

A child cannot consent. This should be obvious.

I understand what you are asking, because when you take a life you take everything from that person.

If you rape someone then they are still alive and have to deal with it.

We don't arrest anyone for watching films where people are murdered. You can watch gore films or WWii imagines, Vietnam, first gulf war/second gulf war and even watch cops kill a nigger on Washington post.

Children are different, it's about our innocence.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

It is tricky, isn't it.

I guess you could draw some differences to try to separate the two.

For example, with CP, the video IS the bad thing. The bad thing that happens in the video was done for the purpose of making the video, and the video exists only for the purpose of showing that bad thing.

With the shooting video, the bad thing is the shooting. Nobody is (to my knowledge) making money off the creation and of such videos, and the violent acts depicted would have happened regardless of whether it was recorded.

Also, looking at CP is illegal, looking at a shooting isn't. It's not illegal to observe a crime, but that's a legal argument, not a moral one.

I imagine there is a point where one could argue a CP video shouldn't be censored, for example if it showed a prominent politician engaging in illegal acts which their party tried to cover up, and the CP video is the evidence. But even then, I'd prefer the victim to be completely obscured.

The fact that the CP being viewed is another victimization could be said to be part of it, but then, isn't watching someone get murdered sort of the same?

Now, murder victims don't have any risk of being triggered in the future by seeing some reference to their murder, as they're busy being dead. CP victims could potentially suffer damage from that.

Interesting thought, you have seemingly found the extreme edge of even free speech proponents.

 

[Recoil]

"Prurient Interest" is the difference.

 

[crocodilian]

Child pornography creates a black market for child sexual exploitation in countries with weak governments that cannot protect children.
Violent videos do no such thing and do not have such a market.

Ackchyually there's a market for snuff films. But you're mostly right.

There's plenty of poor nations where parents will send their middle child to "act" in CP videos in exchange for payment. Coldly measured, at least those kids are still alive and will return home. This is a world of difference from snuff films where at least 1 of the participants isn't coming back, especially heinous if said participant is a child.

 

[Orkeosaurus]

The fact that a small minority of people will get off to a mosque shooting doesn't outweigh the benefit of people actually getting to witness the atrocity. For every hardcore white nationalist who faps to muslims getting shot up there might be a more ironic shitposter turned off the idea when they actually see all those innocent people killed. As others have stated there's also the fact that less well documented mass shootings tend to become radioactively conspiratorial.

There's also the fact that a mass shooting is historical in nature. Whether we want to admit it or not, the effects of the event are huge, whether it be that it sparks a debate on religion or gun control. If we ban this event from being documented why not destroy every video we have of war or genocide?

It might be tough for the parents, but it's not like we ask every nameless soldier's parents if its okay that they're on the history channel being blown up.

CP doesn't have the same benefit of being shown. The only people who need to see it are the police. A pedophile is never going to change their mind if they see a child being hurt.

 

[MuuMuu Bunnylips]

Child pornography creates a black market for child sexual exploitation in countries with weak governments that cannot protect children.
Violent videos do no such thing and do not have such a market.

Also there isn't gunfire or potential explosions.

So not really any fun at all.

 

[los pepes]

Video of a terrorist attack is documentation of a major news event with as we have seen far reaching political, cultural, and legal ramifications. The public has the right to see first hand for themselves exactly what happened if they so choose. Especially in the NZ case where we had widespread disinformation from State run media about what exactly happened in the attack, what was said on the video, and even the contents of his manifesto. You also had the uncomfortable fact that Tarrant was free to enter and leave the mosque multiple times, each time returning to execute more people inside. Watching the video demonstrates the pathetic and slow police response. So you have inexcusable incompetence on the part of the authorities that turned what could have been a 15-20 fatality event into a 50 one (watching the video it's clear how many more people were killed after his first pass inside) and then conveniently and self servingly declaring it a crime to even watch the video. While at the same time denying that their response was inept or slow. So they defend their actions, and then criminalize the evidence that contradicts that defense.

None of that is the case with CP.

 

[Eryngium]

Ones funny to watch, ones sickening.

 

[Крыса]

It's an arbitrary line in the sand that people and society choose to draw, mostly.

I think there's no better argument than "CP leads to more CP", although you could argue that there is something similar with murders/shootings and copycats but the link is less evident. But even that is tenuous at best, if the sole reason for censorship is "this material might eventually lead to someone getting hurt" then why not hate speech too ? Freedom of speech in the US is limited by the threat of immediate, direct, evident "lawless action", but it'd be very hard to argue that viewing or distributing CP poses such a threat, in that regard it shouldn't be more illegal than saying "gas all jews" online. But for CP there doesn't have to be neither an immediate nor a direct link between the material and a further crime because that's that, and no one's going to cry about it although strictly in terms of freedom of speech and from a legal point of view I don't think it's less arbitrary than restricting some types of hate speech.

The documentation/information angle doesn't make much sense to me, videos don't prevent conspiracy theories, and that kind of value is very hard to measure and you'd be effectively drawing a line somewhere : when do you consider that a violent document is too important to be censored ? does a torture or execution video have that kind of informational value ?

 

[spurger king]

Violent videos do no such thing and do not have such a market.

Yet...

 

[1864897514651]

Your question falls on a false base premise. You should instead ask if these videos should even exist. The answer is obviously no, they should not; therefore, you should not watch them. There is zero value in watching extremely graphic videos.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Your question falls on a false base premise. You should instead ask if these videos should even exist. The answer is obviously no, they should not; therefore, you should not watch them. There is zero value in watching extremely graphic videos.

Yeah, and we should ban the publication of sweary words and violent books too!

 

[1864897514651]

[redacted]

I am in full support of a return of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

I am in full support of a return of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

By any non-arbitrary standard, the Bible would fall on that list. It has cursing, incest, murder, and gratuitous torture. In addition, the Song of Solomon is extremely erotic.

 

[1864897514651]

[redacted]

The Canticle of Canticles relates the bridegroom, Jesus the Christ, to us, His Church. Anyway, let me clarify that I am not interested in a ban on publications based on the criteria of swear words and violence. I am just interested in banning publications that are inconducive to the faith. Swear words and violence do not automatically make a work profane, nor should it be considered as such. I was just subtly suggesting that graphically explicit material that is inconducive to the faith should be banned. I was not agreeing with your criteria, which is hyperbolic and sarcastic.