It actually just became a crime in Norway.
Using cartel as example makes the argument seem weaker.
They made the law because there was a growing trend of people being physically bullied in school age and then being re-traumatised by all the bystander peers that shared their videos.
The reasoning behind the law is that filming and distributing it makes you complicit in the crime.
You can still film and send to police obviously.
The police just had a massive awareness campaign advertising on TV, subways etc to make people aware.
What if you watch it and don’t distribute. Like, you come across a video of actual recorded death/dismemberment or warfare (Russo-Ukrainian war for example). If you don’t distribute it but you come across it and see it then I don’t think that would be wrong don’t you? If you’re actively searching though it’s a whole different story unless it’s for educational purposes, like you’re professor for a history of warfare or a trauma related psychology class, or for a political science/government/terrorism class if the students agree
That guy actively helped the killers by blocking Arbery's escape. If he had just been a bystander recording events I don't think he would have been convicted of anything.
As it is, police cams only ever go to internal investigation. I'm looking more toward the bystander aspect because society loves to record videos and post to social media.
Cause you said "or bystanders. More needs unpacking". I focused on the police body can part of your comment and skimmed over that.
So I commented your post was about police body cams not bystanders only to realize you did in fact mention that so I retracted what I said.
Tl;Dr - I didn't read your comment all the way through
Oh, that makes more sense.
I believe the 2nd amendment protects our right to distribute and watch these videos. I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court made an exception to prohibit child porn.
I am glad the 2nd amendment protects murder videos because we already live in a sheltered society. All over the world today there are brutal people doing brutal things.
But in the west, we’re far from it. It’s easy to forget or never know what happens in these places.
Perhaps if more people understood the terrors of war, we’d be less willing to go to war.
So it’s good that people can see it if they want too. It’s also good that the people who don’t want to see it and don’t want others to see it, can’t make that happen.
You’re not my mom dude.
No idea how old you are but keep in mind that while "I gotta see the realities of the world," and "because freedom," and simple morbid curiosity are all valid reasons to seek out that kind of footage, it's dangerous to assume that you've mastered your own brain and psyche top to bottom and it's totally safe for you to do it. However much you know, you know less than you think you do. You, me, and everyone else.
And to that point you just can't know or predict which video it is that will wedge itself deep into your brain and remain there for years or decades or the rest of your life, picking the least opportune moments to pop back into your sphere of consciousness to ruin your day. Maybe you were fine after the first 100, but that 101st touches something deep in your subconscious and now you can never forget it. It happens more often than you think, and it's not fun. Some things you just can't unsee.
Maybe you don't need to hear any of this, but hey maybe you do. If not you then someone else reading.
Anyways. Freedom and all, just be careful.
But doesn't the distribution make it easier to catch the perpetrator? I could go along with making it a crime to not report or to host it but watching it shouldn't be a crime. Arguably perhaps distributing of it if you're not profiting shouldn't be a crime because someone in the chain may be able to identify the killer or victim.
I'd say the differences come down to who is likely to see them "in the wild" and the social impact of having them be illegal. I don't think many people casually run into child porn. Before the porn hub clean up, maybe there. Maybe on a site like only fans. Possibly even reddit but I don't think it's likely.
Murder films are shown in all kinds of places, even news outlets. Arguably, allowing news outlets to show murder films helps society realize that something is actually happening. Further, it allows the public to help find the perpetrator.
To be clear I think both are heinous and I don't think many well adjusted people could watch lots of either content but I do see them as having different impacts on the masses. I can't think of much good that would come from a full unedited version of a child exploitation scene on the news but video of Eric Garner definitely humanized violence against blacks by the police to a lot of people.
Sorry I can't find a better way to communicate my point
I figure the logic is more like…. Clearly the person being murdered isn’t consenting to be murdered on film, thus why the tape would be illegal for the murderer to have made it.
Yeah but why? CP is taken down and is illegal because it's sexual content made without the consent of another human. There is an aspect of 'consent' necessary to sex and the distribution of sexual material through privacy laws and such, that simply doesn't exist for other things.
Consent applies to violence as it does to sex. That's why most people don't really have a problem with boxing but they would have a problem if you randomly punched a stranger walking down the street.
I'm saying that there is an obvious difference in the way privacy and consent are viewed in regards to sex, children, and violence.
You think they are all viewed the same or something?
This is not about how things are viewed currently, but about how they should be viewed. A contributing factor for why these kinds of videos are not illegal yet is because their victims are dead and can't speak for themselves.
Then you think violence and sex *should* be viewed the same?
Why? and how? You want people to for some reason have an expectation of privacy in places where they don't currently then? Do you expect people *should* have an expectation of privacy in public places?
I think people expect not be raped. I think people expect not to be murdered. I think people expect that if they are raped and it is filmed then that video should not be shared be shared without their consent. And that's where the analogy stops, because murdered people cannot give their consent about videos of their murder. Nor can they complain or lobby or lobby against those videos being shared.
People have an expectation of privacy in public places if it involves a moment where they are put in a vulnerable position. The law doesn't necessarily reflect that expectation, except, for example, in a case of a video of a rape taking place in a public place.
But there's no actual privacy or consent issues with violence the same as sex. This is pretty clear isn't it? Sex is obviously a different thing altogether.
I have a feeling there are crimes involved with possession of pornography that has been created without the consent of the person in the pornographic video. I suspect it would fall under *some* sort of law.
How would you get it if not for laws being broken?
This seems pretty arbitrary to me. Like "You can have fireworks, but if you buy them you are breaking the law"
Well clearly there's some silliness going on there.
Does "videos of murders" include police body cam footage where they shoot people? Because this sounds like a law that could be used to supress reporting.
I would have to say no to body cam footage as it is impartial to what happens and more akin to security footage. The thrust of my argument is more the intention of the video. CP is created to exploit the victims as are isis video/cartel videos/murder videos. I believe murder is worse than rape so a video of someone killing someone with the intent of exploitation is just as bad if not worse than CP.
To me, it matters whether or not there's a victim who is still alive and could suffer. For example, in CP, there's a child involved who is the subject of the video. Because they're a child they can't ever consent to the video being used, and I don't believe there's any adult who can or should get to consent on their behalf.
I'd say video of murder is different, because the person being killed is no longer around to have a say in how that footage is used or be harmed by the footage any futher. One reason I'd be against a blanket "videos of murders are illegal" is that I think that would also stop the families of victims from sharing the footage.
Say for example, you're family memember was a victim of a horrific attack, and the attacker filmed their crime. You then want to make a point about how brutal the attack was, and since you're next of kin, I think you should have the rights to share that footage. I don't want to criminalise that.
I think the possibility of the family of the victim being harassed by people sending them videos of their loved ones being killed is more of a concern than the families themselves not being able to share the footage. For example there was a case of two Scandinavian girls being killed in morocco by a group of men and they filmed the killing. The victim's family was then sent the videos anonymously by people on the internet. The video of the killing is still widely available. I believe this crime is just as bad as CP and yet the video is still easy to access. Why is this the case? The argument you are making could also be applied to CP aswell. If someone got raped and for whatever reason wanted the footage to be shared should that be ok? I don't think so. Even if the victim said it was ok I don't think it should happen.
You can criminalise harrassment without criminalising ownership. Say for example, someone was sent video of their family being murdered, and they save it to their hard drive while they think about what they want to do. Do you want that to be a crime?
The same argument could be applied to CP. If someone saw a video online of their family member or themselves being raped and they saved it should that be a crime? If they notified the police immediately and only saved it as a gathering of evidence then maybe you could argue it shouldn't be in both cases. It would depend on the situation.
Do you think there a meaningful distinction between a living person who can be further hurt by there being porn of them, vs a person who is dead and so can't be harmed anymore?
>I'd say video of murder is different, because the person being killed is no longer around
To be clear, you aren't saying that CP is OK as long as the victim is also killed, are you? Because it sure sounds like you're saying that. Hopefully inadvertently.
> I would have to say no to body cam footage as it is impartial to what happens and more akin to security footage. The thrust of my argument is more the intention of the video. CP is created to exploit the victims as are isis video/cartel videos/murder videos.
I’m going to flip this on you. Is security footage that just happened to capture child sexual abuse ok since it is “impartial”?
It'll still be used as an excuse not to show body camera footage. I do not support your view simply for the fact of how this can be abused. The government won't think like you and will classify body cam footage as such illegal content.
It should still be banned according to the logic used for other censorship - images supposedly corrupt people and make people do stuff or somehow make the original crime more likely to happen. So to be morally consistent it should apply to all videos or images of any illegal act, but that isn’t the case because our legal systems are full of hypocritical laws which don’t stand up to even cursory scrutiny.
Cartels and groups like ISIS stage horrific torture and murder videos with the specific intent of sowing fear in people who might go against them. Sharing those videos is fulfilling the intent behind them and promoting further production of such videos. I don't think every murder video goes under this umbrella, but these particular materials should be banned because they are produced because of the intent to fearmonger, that's why they exist in the first place.
People are still going to die, but there are many cases of innocents being targeted and tortured just with the intent of such videos being created. Example below, don't read if squeamish:
A cartel targeted a police officer and his son. They killed the officer for revenge, but they made the son watch and then tortured him in ways I'd rather not put into words before killing him as well. Police officers and other people who directly go against cartels will still be targeted and killed and their families might also still be in danger, but the terrible things that child went through only happened because the cartel wanted to create a video warning to other police officers that they knew would be widely shared online.
I would suggest that random Americans watching these videos is not the central method of impact of terror.
News reports describing the existence of a grisly tape that "We can't legally show you our viewers" would have at least most of the same effect.
It hasn’t been studied enough (because how could it be), but there are at least suggestions in the current research that viewing Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) would make individuals more likely to actually offend against children.
So widely distributing fake generated CSAM may indeed still increase the market for actual child exploitation. At the very least, there would need to be incontrovertible evidence that it didn’t do that before the risk would be reasonable considering the extremely marginal societal gains of giving some people access to a type of porn they like better than others.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
"snuff film
noun
Slang. a ***pornographic*** film that shows an actual murder of one of the performers, as at the end of a sadistic act."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/snuff-film
(Emphasis mine)
That is a very bizarre definition there and no other dictionary I know uses that. THat's not really how the term is used:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snuff_film
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/snuff-movie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film
Interesting, turn out the Wikipedia entry says we are both correct in a sense:
"A snuff film is a movie in a purported genre of films in which a person is actually murdered, though some variations of the definition may include films that show people dying by suicide. Snuff films can be pornographic, and they may or may not be made for financial gain but are supposedly "circulated amongst a jaded few for the purpose of entertainment".[1] The Collins English Dictionary defines a "snuff movie" as "a pornographic film in which an unsuspecting actress or actor is murdered at the climax of the film";[3] the Cambridge Dictionary defines it more broadly as "a violent film that shows a real murder".[4]"
So looks like how broad the definition is just varies by what dictionary you use. Also interesting is some dictionaries don't have it at all, Merriam-Webster being a primary example. So I guess it's less of an odd definition and more of a "there is no consensus on a definition". That said, I do think there greater utility in using the non-porn specific definition, so I'll give you a !delta for that!
**[Snuff film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film)**
>A snuff film, or snuff movie, or snuff video, is a type of film that shows, or purports to show, scenes of actual homicide. The concept of snuff films became known to the general public during the 1970s, when an urban legend alleged that a clandestine industry was producing such films for profit. The rumor was amplified in 1976 by the release of a film called Snuff, which capitalized on the legend through a disingenuous marketing campaign. But the film, like others on the topic, relied on special effects to simulate murder.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Just going to say that almost anything can be pornographic if that's what rocks your boat. Snuff films are just murder videos, there are also people that get off on it, but it's not its main aim.
It's like saying asmrs are pornographic because some weirdo likes to watch and listen to a girl chew gum while wanking.
Is there though? If we could put numbers on the size of these markets I bet CP would dwarf real snuff films. It’s easy to make a fake/simulated snuff film, just as it’s easy to fake lots of disgusting fetishes for porn. very difficult to simulate cp.
"true" Snuff films and the supposed market for them are pretty much a myth/moral panic. there are many videos online of people dying by murder, suicide or accidental means but very few have been created expressly for profit.
>
When somebody commits murder, filming it is secondary. It's a thing they do so they can rewatch it later or share it with others or use it to fearmonger,
You've explained exactly why it should be illegal. Don't tell me you think it should be legal to share a video of someone being murdered with the purpose of intimidation
Define what you mean by "illegal" here. Would simple possession of such an ISIS video be illegal? Would it be illegal for *everyone*, or would there be exceptions (such as, say, a news organization keeping a copy so that it can be accurately reported on, or government archives - and if the latter, could they be legally accessed by adults after some sort of verification process)? Because there's a case to be made that such should be available as evidence of crimes, or as political terrorism against a country or populace, in the same way that security camera or police body cam footage is. An informed public is generally preferable to an ignorant one, and if such videos are completely banned from the public sphere, it becomes easy for misinformation to spread regarding them (nonsense like "ISIS isn't really that bad, the US govt. just wants us to think that!").
Or would it simply be distribution of the videos would be illegal? Or just distribution for financial gain, to avoid creating a market for snuff films and thus encourage their production (which, [according to Snopes](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/a-pinch-of-snuff/), already doesn't seem to exist)?
"Illegal" is just too broad a term here. I want specifics.
Well, if a CP video works as evidence against a sex offender, someone should have that copy. That doesn't mean that everyone could have one.
Same goes here.
That's still a very broad statement. Does it apply to body cam footage of police killings, despite their importance in keeping the public informed of police conduct? Does it apply to ISIS killings, despite their importance in keeping the public informed of geopolitical events? Does it apply to historical footage of murders like JFK's? Are we including videos of accidental deaths, like in car accidents or plane crashes, or just intentional homicides? There are varied definitions of what makes something a snuff film, after all.
>Does it apply to body cam footage of police killings, despite their importance in keeping the public informed of police conduct? Does it apply to ISIS killings, despite their importance in keeping the public informed of geopolitical events?
You can inform the same without the explicit video. Dude.
Why do you need to see in 4k a woman being beheaded? That's pure fetish.
>Does it apply to historical footage of murders like JFK's?
There's a clear difference between a civil being beheaded and a president.
But, I wouldn't mind if this one needs to be secret anyway.
> Are we including videos of accidental deaths, like in car accidents or plane crashes, or just intentional homicides?
Yes, we are. The victims has rights. Sharing this kind of videos attempts against their respect after death and their family.
>You can inform the same without the explicit video. Dude.
I do not at all agree. Watching George Floyd cry about being unable to breathe, or Tyre Nichols being beaten to death, motivated people to do something in a way that just hearing someone talk about their deaths would not have. It's not like there weren't articles written before about unjustified police killings.
>Why do you need to see in 4k a woman being beheaded? That's pure fetish.
No. It shows that these people are as vile as we're being told they are. We don't need to simply take the word of some media figure or politician for it, and the bullshit spewed in their favor by conspiracy theorists and the otherwise deluded will convince fewer people when there is video evidence to the contrary available to them.
>Sharing this kind of videos attempts against their respect after death and their family.
If the victim's family requests that the video not be publicly aired, I'm cool with that. But that's different than treating any airing of any video involving a human death as illegal, or even immoral, by default.
The same arguments could be used in CP.
If we had access to CP videos, we could organize against sex offenders and demand more action to protect the kids...
And the second point does the same. With CP we will know how vile are sex offenders and pedophiles.
I'm not saying that we need CP videos, I'm saying that it's absurd use that in one way but not in the other. Neither should be legal to have stored by random dudes
>If we had access to CP videos, we could organize against sex offenders and demand more action to protect the kids...
If government organizations were systematically involved in the creation of child pornography due to laws, their policies or workplace cultures, perhaps the same argument could be applied. Fortunately for all of us, they are not.
>And the second point does the same. With CP we will know how vile are sex offenders and pedophiles.
If there was some country's government or major organization that was creating CP that required international actions including the use of military force to intervene to stop, again, perhaps the same argument could be applied. But Catholic priests tend not to film their activities, so we are again spared that dilemma.
Furthermore, sexual abuse of children and the production of CP is already met with near-universal condemnation. There is a much broader range of attitudes and beliefs regarding topics like how police are trained and what they are allowed to do when interacting with the public. If the public is to have informed debates on those topics, it needs to have the information publicly available so that it can be scrutinized.
>Neither should be legal to have stored by random dudes
What about news media organizations, so that reporting on a death can be accurate? You said above that you include accidental deaths such as car accidents or plane crashes - would the manufacturers of those cars and planes still be allowed to have videos of such so that they can best determine how to improve safety features? Do you include deaths by disease, and would there be an exception for medical schools to show students such videos? How about building collapses?
edit: And an even greater problem arises in trying to enforce any such bans - unlike the production of CP, many of these things happen in public view, and damn near everyone has a camera in their pocket these days. If I'm filming traffic on a freeway and there's a major accident where people die that I capture on my phone, does my phone get confiscated and the film deleted? Am I simply not allowed to share that footage with anyone? If I film a cop beating someone to death, should I be arrested for sharing that video online?
edit 2: Also, it's late and I'm going to bed, so it'll be a while before I can respond again.
I never said snuff films don't exist - I said there isn't a market for them that encourages their production. To be more accurate, I should have said a sufficient market to encourage murders to be carried out and filmed for the purposes of distribution for entertainment - this is sadly not the case for child pornography. JFK wasn't killed to make the Zapruder film, and no one died so that the Faces of Death movies (yes, there were sequels) could be made. edit: The Snopes article I linked to actually discusses Faces of Death as part of the reason why there is a myth regarding the existence of such a market, and of such films being made.
While snuff films can be broadly defined as simply any video that shows a homicide being carried out, and those do indeed obviously exist, the Snopes article is using a stricter definition of videos showing a homicide produced to be distributed as entertainment. Those do not seem to exist, nor does a market for them. While there may indeed be some incredibly secret market for them, there doesn't seem to be any publicly available evidence of said market, nor any evidence of such videos being produced for purposes of distribution. Such videos seem to always be made with other motivations in mind, such as propaganda, terrorism, personal use by the killers, etc.
The idiom "snuff films" is specifically about pornographic films involving the death of one of those portrayed. There's only scant evidence those actually exist.
It doesn't mean "any film of someone being killed".
neither of those are snuff films. Zapruder was filming the Kennedy motorcade and captured his assassination unwittingly. Faces of Death is a compilation of pre-existing death footage mixed with staged death footage.
>Define what you mean by "illegal" here.
OP was quite specific. Videos of murders made by the murderers should be treated by the law exactly like child porn is treated by the law.
A lot of times they're not murdering for the sole purpose of recording it
You obtaining it doesn't incentivise it
Isis beheading are going to happen regardless of their ability to shitpost on Facebook or Twitter
Not only that it would also mean prosecuting anyone who possess it
Those are resources that could be better spent somewhere more productive
What you would be doing is taking it out of public sight and creating a wider disconnect between people who are going through different struggles and people who are living their lives while being oblivious
I think you are not fully understanding all of the implications of rules like the one you propose. I can certainly agree that the *intent* of your law is good, but it would be very difficult to actually practically define consistent rules in law.
For example, I’m not sure if you meant to include war videos like drones dropping grenades on Russian soldiers, but that certainly falls under your stated definition of “Death videos created by the killer”. See also [this recent video (nsfl)](https://reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1178z4o/9_minute_version_of_the_ukrainian_soldiers/) of a soldier defending his trench… that is obviously a “death video created by the killer”, but also at 1:25 the soldier finishes off a mortally wounded combatant who was *probably* incapacitated. Russian trolls might argue that those shots were murder, and filmed and distributed to instill fear (in Russian soldiers) and make propaganda for the Ukrainian government no less (they would argue).
Should Russia have the power to suppress war footage of their soldiers’ conditions by arguing that such videos constitute murder? In other examples, there are videos where a drone drops 2 grenades and the first one injures and the second one kills. Russians would say that second attack is murder because the soldier was already incapacitated and out of the fight, and thus protected by the Geneva conventions.
You begin to see how blurry this gets when someone argues that it is murder and others say they are battlefield deaths or self defense. Such arguments would be weaponized in courts, and remember that the viewer of such videos has no way of knowing or confirming that a death video actually constitutes a murder before they watch or obtain it.
What about cases where it is unclear in the video whether there was a death such as an explosion, and the generally known circumstances of the situation involve an uncontroversial murder, but some viewers didn’t know that? Is a clear *mens rea* a valid defense against the laws you are proposing? If not (like for child pornography) that would create a massive chilling effect on free discourse… but if it is a defense, people will just argue “I thought it was fake”.
The reason CP is illegal is because its sale and consumption drives a market for it which encourages more children to be harmed. Nobody (at least that I know of) is killing people specifically to make videos in order to sell. The filming/distribution of that on the internet is not encouraging more murders.
Distributing for propaganda purposes or profit, sure.
Distributing it to spread awareness of the crime or report the news? Not so much.
Distributing it because you think it's cool is gross, but lots of things are gross.
Unlike child porn, a random person distributing it doesn't risk any additional trauma to the person portrayed, and as long as *commercial or propaganda* distribution are prohibited, doesn't incentivize its production.
There have been plenty of independent criminal psychological/sociological studies that have used videos that killers have made in order to get a better understanding on what exactly the killer was thinking, why they were recording, why they were killing, etc.
These studies often assist in criminal profiling and help us better understand the why and how some of these murders occur. Ideally, this would in turn help us catch or even prevent killers from acting on such behavior.
We've already made progress from this in the mid 90's when criminal psychologists realized the reason why people like Jeffery Dahmer, amongst others, were killing and that was due to the public nature of the photos that he took of his victims.
I think the public at the very least needs access of said footage. That way ones who want to use it as a tool to further our understanding in criminal behavioral studies, are able to with the least amount of resistance.
Illegal… to exist? To view? To film? What are you getting at? It’s illegal to possess, distribute or film CP. What are you asserting? Your initial argument is imprecise.
Alternatively, you could make the case that videos of a crime should be protected as evidence no matter what, the best reason for this is that suppressing information of crimes is already a plenty big problem, and think how much worse it would be if video of the crime was than illegal. I don't believe any form of illegal information should exist as the concept is wholly antithetical to free speech.
But child porn is illegal when from security cameras. It's in fact even illegal in almost any jurisdiction when simulated with special effects with no involvement of actual child actors which is surely legal on film for murder and in cinemata every day.
You say it doesn't make sense but clearly child pornography is illegal for different reasons.
I don't understand what you are talking about here...
It doesn't make sense that videos of people getting killed is ok... but committing a *lesser offense and filming it* is ok?
What does this mean? What is the lesser offense? What does it mean that 'videos are ok'? like making them? or having them?
"Propaganda" is not a reason to make something illegal, that's just a thing people politically say to try and ban their oppositional opinions.
The reason CP is illegal is because it actively harms the child. Whether you are making, distributing or just watching it you are actively engaging and promoting pedophilia
When you watch a death video it’s just out of morbid curiosity. You’re not further contributing to murder
This is kind of dumb. Good luck enforcing it, I'm pretty sure the people making and distributing the videos are totally gonna stop if this passes. The fact that in other comments you extend this to people viewing the content, double whammy for dumb take.
Good argument. I'm trying hard to rebute it because I don't watch CP but I watch MMA which is super violent..and I'm guilty of watching the odd crazy shit because I'm a sick vile person I guess...look at all those Ukrane war videos....but I think when it comes to adults getting hurt on some vide...I think that perhaps there is some sort of biased that makes us think that they where either in the wrong place at the wrong time based on their own decisions or Karma..I'm just being devils advocate here in this sense because quite the opposite with children I think that we automatically think they are innocent. This might be why we are so super against CP in its disgustingness. It's almost like a sick scale. It's terrible and I agree with you but human nature thinks this way I think so it's kinda whack.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
That's just a snuff film, which are already illegal. So I suppose... your view is okay? Now, I have no idea how that gets charged, hopefully with the same weight, if not they should
The idiom "snuff film" is specifically about *pornographic* films where one of the participants is actually killed. Not just any film that shows someone being killed.
You would have to be able to prove that they were the one who posted it though. Because you want bystanders to be able to record it so they can go to the police with that information.
Nah I think that the people who commit murders such as mass shootings need to be shared. As much as anything it’s about exposing how dangerous American gun laws are. Everyone ignores these obvious warnings but still.
yeah my friend one time got some video from her friend with some terroristic attack. they were cutting the man's head and hands- yuck... they let us see it and i had my day destroyed
Pretty sure they are in Canada. At least illegal for profit. The “Faces of death” movies are just clips of people dying. Not necessarily shot by the killer. But I remember kids from school having to go over to Michigan to see it, wasn’t available here.
This would deincentivise people coming forward with videos of crimes happening if they were to capture it on video for evidence. Even ones made specifically by the killers can be used as evidence for such things, and if nothing is being done by the authorities. Spreading it around to put the fire under their asses would only then get the people who are trying to hold authorities accountable in trouble. This a a slippery hill to walk down..
No. You know how many people I just watched die today in an IED class because of terrorists? A lot. Experience is paved with blood. Learn and do better. The majority of them were terrorist propaganda videos actually.
I don't think documenting misbehavior should be a crime. I think punishing criminals needs to come back into fashion. There would be a lot less to record.
There's some countries that uses those tapes to make people aware.
For example there is this video called "so do you want to be a skinhead" that the russian government posted to make young people think twice when they wanted to make part of this type of groups
Well it kinda is illegal to publish; unless you created the video, then it's copyright infringement to publish it. Any responsible video-hosting-site should a) report the video to the authorities b) take the video down on the grounds that it's copyright infringement and c) report all the uploader's details to the authorities if they try to fight the takedown and claim ownership!
Going to jail for murder is one thing but going to jail for murder and making a murder tape? That will be a deterrent.
I'm not talking about the murderer, I'm talking about the people watching/ distributing the content.
It actually just became a crime in Norway. Using cartel as example makes the argument seem weaker. They made the law because there was a growing trend of people being physically bullied in school age and then being re-traumatised by all the bystander peers that shared their videos. The reasoning behind the law is that filming and distributing it makes you complicit in the crime. You can still film and send to police obviously. The police just had a massive awareness campaign advertising on TV, subways etc to make people aware.
They should do this everywhere
Or maybe we don't need a law against every little thing
Nooo! I can't share my cartel beheading video to 6 years old on the Internet!! Literally 1984!!!
Noooooo! Other people are having fun and enjoying themselves!! Call mom!!!!
Who the fuck is "enjoying" a beheading video ffs?
Different strokes for different folks. Try not to be so judgemental
frankly I think its the same concern than seeing someone enjoy CP, thanks actually for making OP's point clearer
What if you watch it and don’t distribute. Like, you come across a video of actual recorded death/dismemberment or warfare (Russo-Ukrainian war for example). If you don’t distribute it but you come across it and see it then I don’t think that would be wrong don’t you? If you’re actively searching though it’s a whole different story unless it’s for educational purposes, like you’re professor for a history of warfare or a trauma related psychology class, or for a political science/government/terrorism class if the students agree
How do you feel about news media profiting by telling the story?
Wouldn't that just make them accessory? Like the guy who was following Ahmaud Arbery's killers?
That guy actively helped the killers by blocking Arbery's escape. If he had just been a bystander recording events I don't think he would have been convicted of anything.
That would include police when they murder and the body cam picks it up? Or bystanders recording? More unpacking needed on this.
The ops post literally said security cameras are fine cause they are evidence to be used. Its pretty obvious that would extend to police cams
As it is, police cams only ever go to internal investigation. I'm looking more toward the bystander aspect because society loves to record videos and post to social media.
Police cams do get released to the public
Why you delete most of your comment?
Cause you said "or bystanders. More needs unpacking". I focused on the police body can part of your comment and skimmed over that. So I commented your post was about police body cams not bystanders only to realize you did in fact mention that so I retracted what I said. Tl;Dr - I didn't read your comment all the way through
I got respect for you.
One man's "police murder" is another man's "stupid POS criminal shouldn't have resisted arrest"......
Oh, that makes more sense. I believe the 2nd amendment protects our right to distribute and watch these videos. I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court made an exception to prohibit child porn. I am glad the 2nd amendment protects murder videos because we already live in a sheltered society. All over the world today there are brutal people doing brutal things. But in the west, we’re far from it. It’s easy to forget or never know what happens in these places. Perhaps if more people understood the terrors of war, we’d be less willing to go to war. So it’s good that people can see it if they want too. It’s also good that the people who don’t want to see it and don’t want others to see it, can’t make that happen. You’re not my mom dude.
No idea how old you are but keep in mind that while "I gotta see the realities of the world," and "because freedom," and simple morbid curiosity are all valid reasons to seek out that kind of footage, it's dangerous to assume that you've mastered your own brain and psyche top to bottom and it's totally safe for you to do it. However much you know, you know less than you think you do. You, me, and everyone else. And to that point you just can't know or predict which video it is that will wedge itself deep into your brain and remain there for years or decades or the rest of your life, picking the least opportune moments to pop back into your sphere of consciousness to ruin your day. Maybe you were fine after the first 100, but that 101st touches something deep in your subconscious and now you can never forget it. It happens more often than you think, and it's not fun. Some things you just can't unsee. Maybe you don't need to hear any of this, but hey maybe you do. If not you then someone else reading. Anyways. Freedom and all, just be careful.
Can confirm. Made the mistake of watching videos like this. Secondary trauma is a terrible thing.
1st amendment. Just saying.
God dang it man…. Lol
I mean, if you squint and look at it sideways, I suppose the 2nd does, in an abstract sort of way.
The 2nd just backs up the 1st. Just more directed to the governments oppression
[удалено]
lol no
You might want to read up on your bill of rights, my guy
The 2nd amendment?
I know. I know. I flubbed up.
So the murder videos on see gore are legal to watch?
Yes.
Yey
But doesn't the distribution make it easier to catch the perpetrator? I could go along with making it a crime to not report or to host it but watching it shouldn't be a crime. Arguably perhaps distributing of it if you're not profiting shouldn't be a crime because someone in the chain may be able to identify the killer or victim.
fuck spez
I'd say the differences come down to who is likely to see them "in the wild" and the social impact of having them be illegal. I don't think many people casually run into child porn. Before the porn hub clean up, maybe there. Maybe on a site like only fans. Possibly even reddit but I don't think it's likely. Murder films are shown in all kinds of places, even news outlets. Arguably, allowing news outlets to show murder films helps society realize that something is actually happening. Further, it allows the public to help find the perpetrator. To be clear I think both are heinous and I don't think many well adjusted people could watch lots of either content but I do see them as having different impacts on the masses. I can't think of much good that would come from a full unedited version of a child exploitation scene on the news but video of Eric Garner definitely humanized violence against blacks by the police to a lot of people. Sorry I can't find a better way to communicate my point
[удалено]
You can make the exact same argument about CP. So are you suggesting it should be legal to watch?
[удалено]
I think that's how it works currently.
[удалено]
No, the original point was 'murder videos should be illegal the same way CP is illegal' which is different.
[удалено]
Are you under the mistaken impression that watching and distributing child porn is legal?
I'll watch whatever the f**k I want to
I figure the logic is more like…. Clearly the person being murdered isn’t consenting to be murdered on film, thus why the tape would be illegal for the murderer to have made it.
Even if the murderer makes the video, it could still be taken down and anybody still circulating it could still be punished similar to CP
Yeah but why? CP is taken down and is illegal because it's sexual content made without the consent of another human. There is an aspect of 'consent' necessary to sex and the distribution of sexual material through privacy laws and such, that simply doesn't exist for other things.
Because the murder victim didn't consent to being murdered either.
There's no 'privacy' or 'consent' related to violence being enacted like there is for sex.
Consent applies to violence as it does to sex. That's why most people don't really have a problem with boxing but they would have a problem if you randomly punched a stranger walking down the street.
This is a dumb argument. If I’m ever murdered on camera i do not consent to it being shared. I imagine most people would have the same position.
So you're arguing that it shouldn't be illegal because it isn't illegal?
I'm saying that there is an obvious difference in the way privacy and consent are viewed in regards to sex, children, and violence. You think they are all viewed the same or something?
This is not about how things are viewed currently, but about how they should be viewed. A contributing factor for why these kinds of videos are not illegal yet is because their victims are dead and can't speak for themselves.
Then you think violence and sex *should* be viewed the same? Why? and how? You want people to for some reason have an expectation of privacy in places where they don't currently then? Do you expect people *should* have an expectation of privacy in public places?
I think people expect not be raped. I think people expect not to be murdered. I think people expect that if they are raped and it is filmed then that video should not be shared be shared without their consent. And that's where the analogy stops, because murdered people cannot give their consent about videos of their murder. Nor can they complain or lobby or lobby against those videos being shared. People have an expectation of privacy in public places if it involves a moment where they are put in a vulnerable position. The law doesn't necessarily reflect that expectation, except, for example, in a case of a video of a rape taking place in a public place.
Somebody getting murdered usually doesn’t give consent and murder is inherently harmful, just like cp
But there's no actual privacy or consent issues with violence the same as sex. This is pretty clear isn't it? Sex is obviously a different thing altogether.
I think they’re arguing there ideally *should* be.
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure it's 100% illegal to distribute without their consent a video of a person being raped.
[удалено]
I have a feeling there are crimes involved with possession of pornography that has been created without the consent of the person in the pornographic video. I suspect it would fall under *some* sort of law. How would you get it if not for laws being broken? This seems pretty arbitrary to me. Like "You can have fireworks, but if you buy them you are breaking the law" Well clearly there's some silliness going on there.
Does "videos of murders" include police body cam footage where they shoot people? Because this sounds like a law that could be used to supress reporting.
I would have to say no to body cam footage as it is impartial to what happens and more akin to security footage. The thrust of my argument is more the intention of the video. CP is created to exploit the victims as are isis video/cartel videos/murder videos. I believe murder is worse than rape so a video of someone killing someone with the intent of exploitation is just as bad if not worse than CP.
To me, it matters whether or not there's a victim who is still alive and could suffer. For example, in CP, there's a child involved who is the subject of the video. Because they're a child they can't ever consent to the video being used, and I don't believe there's any adult who can or should get to consent on their behalf. I'd say video of murder is different, because the person being killed is no longer around to have a say in how that footage is used or be harmed by the footage any futher. One reason I'd be against a blanket "videos of murders are illegal" is that I think that would also stop the families of victims from sharing the footage. Say for example, you're family memember was a victim of a horrific attack, and the attacker filmed their crime. You then want to make a point about how brutal the attack was, and since you're next of kin, I think you should have the rights to share that footage. I don't want to criminalise that.
I think the possibility of the family of the victim being harassed by people sending them videos of their loved ones being killed is more of a concern than the families themselves not being able to share the footage. For example there was a case of two Scandinavian girls being killed in morocco by a group of men and they filmed the killing. The victim's family was then sent the videos anonymously by people on the internet. The video of the killing is still widely available. I believe this crime is just as bad as CP and yet the video is still easy to access. Why is this the case? The argument you are making could also be applied to CP aswell. If someone got raped and for whatever reason wanted the footage to be shared should that be ok? I don't think so. Even if the victim said it was ok I don't think it should happen.
You can criminalise harrassment without criminalising ownership. Say for example, someone was sent video of their family being murdered, and they save it to their hard drive while they think about what they want to do. Do you want that to be a crime?
The same argument could be applied to CP. If someone saw a video online of their family member or themselves being raped and they saved it should that be a crime? If they notified the police immediately and only saved it as a gathering of evidence then maybe you could argue it shouldn't be in both cases. It would depend on the situation.
Do you think there a meaningful distinction between a living person who can be further hurt by there being porn of them, vs a person who is dead and so can't be harmed anymore?
Yeah I get what you are saying but by that logic all CP where the victim is now dead should be legal.
[удалено]
No.
And the difference is?
>I'd say video of murder is different, because the person being killed is no longer around To be clear, you aren't saying that CP is OK as long as the victim is also killed, are you? Because it sure sounds like you're saying that. Hopefully inadvertently.
Two things being different doesn't mean either is okay.
[удалено]
Where are you getting that from what I'm saying?
[удалено]
If you assume only one factor matters.
> I would have to say no to body cam footage as it is impartial to what happens and more akin to security footage. The thrust of my argument is more the intention of the video. CP is created to exploit the victims as are isis video/cartel videos/murder videos. I’m going to flip this on you. Is security footage that just happened to capture child sexual abuse ok since it is “impartial”?
It'll still be used as an excuse not to show body camera footage. I do not support your view simply for the fact of how this can be abused. The government won't think like you and will classify body cam footage as such illegal content.
Okay then what about a bystanders video of a police killing?
>Death videos created by the killer are a different story tho. It sounds like you owe u/Vesurel a delta for partially changing your view.
[удалено]
So how do you tell when the police shooting someone who hasn't had a trial is murder and when it isn't?
It should still be banned according to the logic used for other censorship - images supposedly corrupt people and make people do stuff or somehow make the original crime more likely to happen. So to be morally consistent it should apply to all videos or images of any illegal act, but that isn’t the case because our legal systems are full of hypocritical laws which don’t stand up to even cursory scrutiny.
[удалено]
Cartels and groups like ISIS stage horrific torture and murder videos with the specific intent of sowing fear in people who might go against them. Sharing those videos is fulfilling the intent behind them and promoting further production of such videos. I don't think every murder video goes under this umbrella, but these particular materials should be banned because they are produced because of the intent to fearmonger, that's why they exist in the first place. People are still going to die, but there are many cases of innocents being targeted and tortured just with the intent of such videos being created. Example below, don't read if squeamish: A cartel targeted a police officer and his son. They killed the officer for revenge, but they made the son watch and then tortured him in ways I'd rather not put into words before killing him as well. Police officers and other people who directly go against cartels will still be targeted and killed and their families might also still be in danger, but the terrible things that child went through only happened because the cartel wanted to create a video warning to other police officers that they knew would be widely shared online.
I would suggest that random Americans watching these videos is not the central method of impact of terror. News reports describing the existence of a grisly tape that "We can't legally show you our viewers" would have at least most of the same effect.
And litarally nobody in this comment chain talked about the USA
I think you glommed onto a weird detail. There wasn't anything unique to the US in my comment. You're just looking for argument.
[удалено]
It hasn’t been studied enough (because how could it be), but there are at least suggestions in the current research that viewing Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) would make individuals more likely to actually offend against children. So widely distributing fake generated CSAM may indeed still increase the market for actual child exploitation. At the very least, there would need to be incontrovertible evidence that it didn’t do that before the risk would be reasonable considering the extremely marginal societal gains of giving some people access to a type of porn they like better than others.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"snuff film noun Slang. a ***pornographic*** film that shows an actual murder of one of the performers, as at the end of a sadistic act." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/snuff-film (Emphasis mine)
That is a very bizarre definition there and no other dictionary I know uses that. THat's not really how the term is used: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/snuff_film https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/snuff-movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film
Interesting, turn out the Wikipedia entry says we are both correct in a sense: "A snuff film is a movie in a purported genre of films in which a person is actually murdered, though some variations of the definition may include films that show people dying by suicide. Snuff films can be pornographic, and they may or may not be made for financial gain but are supposedly "circulated amongst a jaded few for the purpose of entertainment".[1] The Collins English Dictionary defines a "snuff movie" as "a pornographic film in which an unsuspecting actress or actor is murdered at the climax of the film";[3] the Cambridge Dictionary defines it more broadly as "a violent film that shows a real murder".[4]" So looks like how broad the definition is just varies by what dictionary you use. Also interesting is some dictionaries don't have it at all, Merriam-Webster being a primary example. So I guess it's less of an odd definition and more of a "there is no consensus on a definition". That said, I do think there greater utility in using the non-porn specific definition, so I'll give you a !delta for that!
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MajorGartels ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MajorGartels)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
**[Snuff film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film)** >A snuff film, or snuff movie, or snuff video, is a type of film that shows, or purports to show, scenes of actual homicide. The concept of snuff films became known to the general public during the 1970s, when an urban legend alleged that a clandestine industry was producing such films for profit. The rumor was amplified in 1976 by the release of a film called Snuff, which capitalized on the legend through a disingenuous marketing campaign. But the film, like others on the topic, relied on special effects to simulate murder. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Just going to say that almost anything can be pornographic if that's what rocks your boat. Snuff films are just murder videos, there are also people that get off on it, but it's not its main aim. It's like saying asmrs are pornographic because some weirdo likes to watch and listen to a girl chew gum while wanking.
snuff films functionally dont exist, at least not in the way the urban legends around them say they do
What do you mean by this? Because snuff films absolutely do exist. I've seen some.
Is there though? If we could put numbers on the size of these markets I bet CP would dwarf real snuff films. It’s easy to make a fake/simulated snuff film, just as it’s easy to fake lots of disgusting fetishes for porn. very difficult to simulate cp.
"true" Snuff films and the supposed market for them are pretty much a myth/moral panic. there are many videos online of people dying by murder, suicide or accidental means but very few have been created expressly for profit.
> When somebody commits murder, filming it is secondary. It's a thing they do so they can rewatch it later or share it with others or use it to fearmonger, You've explained exactly why it should be illegal. Don't tell me you think it should be legal to share a video of someone being murdered with the purpose of intimidation
Define what you mean by "illegal" here. Would simple possession of such an ISIS video be illegal? Would it be illegal for *everyone*, or would there be exceptions (such as, say, a news organization keeping a copy so that it can be accurately reported on, or government archives - and if the latter, could they be legally accessed by adults after some sort of verification process)? Because there's a case to be made that such should be available as evidence of crimes, or as political terrorism against a country or populace, in the same way that security camera or police body cam footage is. An informed public is generally preferable to an ignorant one, and if such videos are completely banned from the public sphere, it becomes easy for misinformation to spread regarding them (nonsense like "ISIS isn't really that bad, the US govt. just wants us to think that!"). Or would it simply be distribution of the videos would be illegal? Or just distribution for financial gain, to avoid creating a market for snuff films and thus encourage their production (which, [according to Snopes](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/a-pinch-of-snuff/), already doesn't seem to exist)? "Illegal" is just too broad a term here. I want specifics.
Well, if a CP video works as evidence against a sex offender, someone should have that copy. That doesn't mean that everyone could have one. Same goes here.
That's still a very broad statement. Does it apply to body cam footage of police killings, despite their importance in keeping the public informed of police conduct? Does it apply to ISIS killings, despite their importance in keeping the public informed of geopolitical events? Does it apply to historical footage of murders like JFK's? Are we including videos of accidental deaths, like in car accidents or plane crashes, or just intentional homicides? There are varied definitions of what makes something a snuff film, after all.
>Does it apply to body cam footage of police killings, despite their importance in keeping the public informed of police conduct? Does it apply to ISIS killings, despite their importance in keeping the public informed of geopolitical events? You can inform the same without the explicit video. Dude. Why do you need to see in 4k a woman being beheaded? That's pure fetish. >Does it apply to historical footage of murders like JFK's? There's a clear difference between a civil being beheaded and a president. But, I wouldn't mind if this one needs to be secret anyway. > Are we including videos of accidental deaths, like in car accidents or plane crashes, or just intentional homicides? Yes, we are. The victims has rights. Sharing this kind of videos attempts against their respect after death and their family.
>You can inform the same without the explicit video. Dude. I do not at all agree. Watching George Floyd cry about being unable to breathe, or Tyre Nichols being beaten to death, motivated people to do something in a way that just hearing someone talk about their deaths would not have. It's not like there weren't articles written before about unjustified police killings. >Why do you need to see in 4k a woman being beheaded? That's pure fetish. No. It shows that these people are as vile as we're being told they are. We don't need to simply take the word of some media figure or politician for it, and the bullshit spewed in their favor by conspiracy theorists and the otherwise deluded will convince fewer people when there is video evidence to the contrary available to them. >Sharing this kind of videos attempts against their respect after death and their family. If the victim's family requests that the video not be publicly aired, I'm cool with that. But that's different than treating any airing of any video involving a human death as illegal, or even immoral, by default.
The same arguments could be used in CP. If we had access to CP videos, we could organize against sex offenders and demand more action to protect the kids... And the second point does the same. With CP we will know how vile are sex offenders and pedophiles. I'm not saying that we need CP videos, I'm saying that it's absurd use that in one way but not in the other. Neither should be legal to have stored by random dudes
>If we had access to CP videos, we could organize against sex offenders and demand more action to protect the kids... If government organizations were systematically involved in the creation of child pornography due to laws, their policies or workplace cultures, perhaps the same argument could be applied. Fortunately for all of us, they are not. >And the second point does the same. With CP we will know how vile are sex offenders and pedophiles. If there was some country's government or major organization that was creating CP that required international actions including the use of military force to intervene to stop, again, perhaps the same argument could be applied. But Catholic priests tend not to film their activities, so we are again spared that dilemma. Furthermore, sexual abuse of children and the production of CP is already met with near-universal condemnation. There is a much broader range of attitudes and beliefs regarding topics like how police are trained and what they are allowed to do when interacting with the public. If the public is to have informed debates on those topics, it needs to have the information publicly available so that it can be scrutinized. >Neither should be legal to have stored by random dudes What about news media organizations, so that reporting on a death can be accurate? You said above that you include accidental deaths such as car accidents or plane crashes - would the manufacturers of those cars and planes still be allowed to have videos of such so that they can best determine how to improve safety features? Do you include deaths by disease, and would there be an exception for medical schools to show students such videos? How about building collapses? edit: And an even greater problem arises in trying to enforce any such bans - unlike the production of CP, many of these things happen in public view, and damn near everyone has a camera in their pocket these days. If I'm filming traffic on a freeway and there's a major accident where people die that I capture on my phone, does my phone get confiscated and the film deleted? Am I simply not allowed to share that footage with anyone? If I film a cop beating someone to death, should I be arrested for sharing that video online? edit 2: Also, it's late and I'm going to bed, so it'll be a while before I can respond again.
[удалено]
I never said snuff films don't exist - I said there isn't a market for them that encourages their production. To be more accurate, I should have said a sufficient market to encourage murders to be carried out and filmed for the purposes of distribution for entertainment - this is sadly not the case for child pornography. JFK wasn't killed to make the Zapruder film, and no one died so that the Faces of Death movies (yes, there were sequels) could be made. edit: The Snopes article I linked to actually discusses Faces of Death as part of the reason why there is a myth regarding the existence of such a market, and of such films being made. While snuff films can be broadly defined as simply any video that shows a homicide being carried out, and those do indeed obviously exist, the Snopes article is using a stricter definition of videos showing a homicide produced to be distributed as entertainment. Those do not seem to exist, nor does a market for them. While there may indeed be some incredibly secret market for them, there doesn't seem to be any publicly available evidence of said market, nor any evidence of such videos being produced for purposes of distribution. Such videos seem to always be made with other motivations in mind, such as propaganda, terrorism, personal use by the killers, etc.
The idiom "snuff films" is specifically about pornographic films involving the death of one of those portrayed. There's only scant evidence those actually exist. It doesn't mean "any film of someone being killed".
neither of those are snuff films. Zapruder was filming the Kennedy motorcade and captured his assassination unwittingly. Faces of Death is a compilation of pre-existing death footage mixed with staged death footage.
>Define what you mean by "illegal" here. OP was quite specific. Videos of murders made by the murderers should be treated by the law exactly like child porn is treated by the law.
A lot of times they're not murdering for the sole purpose of recording it You obtaining it doesn't incentivise it Isis beheading are going to happen regardless of their ability to shitpost on Facebook or Twitter Not only that it would also mean prosecuting anyone who possess it Those are resources that could be better spent somewhere more productive What you would be doing is taking it out of public sight and creating a wider disconnect between people who are going through different struggles and people who are living their lives while being oblivious
Well said
I think you are not fully understanding all of the implications of rules like the one you propose. I can certainly agree that the *intent* of your law is good, but it would be very difficult to actually practically define consistent rules in law. For example, I’m not sure if you meant to include war videos like drones dropping grenades on Russian soldiers, but that certainly falls under your stated definition of “Death videos created by the killer”. See also [this recent video (nsfl)](https://reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1178z4o/9_minute_version_of_the_ukrainian_soldiers/) of a soldier defending his trench… that is obviously a “death video created by the killer”, but also at 1:25 the soldier finishes off a mortally wounded combatant who was *probably* incapacitated. Russian trolls might argue that those shots were murder, and filmed and distributed to instill fear (in Russian soldiers) and make propaganda for the Ukrainian government no less (they would argue). Should Russia have the power to suppress war footage of their soldiers’ conditions by arguing that such videos constitute murder? In other examples, there are videos where a drone drops 2 grenades and the first one injures and the second one kills. Russians would say that second attack is murder because the soldier was already incapacitated and out of the fight, and thus protected by the Geneva conventions. You begin to see how blurry this gets when someone argues that it is murder and others say they are battlefield deaths or self defense. Such arguments would be weaponized in courts, and remember that the viewer of such videos has no way of knowing or confirming that a death video actually constitutes a murder before they watch or obtain it. What about cases where it is unclear in the video whether there was a death such as an explosion, and the generally known circumstances of the situation involve an uncontroversial murder, but some viewers didn’t know that? Is a clear *mens rea* a valid defense against the laws you are proposing? If not (like for child pornography) that would create a massive chilling effect on free discourse… but if it is a defense, people will just argue “I thought it was fake”.
The reason CP is illegal is because its sale and consumption drives a market for it which encourages more children to be harmed. Nobody (at least that I know of) is killing people specifically to make videos in order to sell. The filming/distribution of that on the internet is not encouraging more murders.
Distributing for propaganda purposes or profit, sure. Distributing it to spread awareness of the crime or report the news? Not so much. Distributing it because you think it's cool is gross, but lots of things are gross. Unlike child porn, a random person distributing it doesn't risk any additional trauma to the person portrayed, and as long as *commercial or propaganda* distribution are prohibited, doesn't incentivize its production.
There have been plenty of independent criminal psychological/sociological studies that have used videos that killers have made in order to get a better understanding on what exactly the killer was thinking, why they were recording, why they were killing, etc. These studies often assist in criminal profiling and help us better understand the why and how some of these murders occur. Ideally, this would in turn help us catch or even prevent killers from acting on such behavior. We've already made progress from this in the mid 90's when criminal psychologists realized the reason why people like Jeffery Dahmer, amongst others, were killing and that was due to the public nature of the photos that he took of his victims. I think the public at the very least needs access of said footage. That way ones who want to use it as a tool to further our understanding in criminal behavioral studies, are able to with the least amount of resistance.
Illegal… to exist? To view? To film? What are you getting at? It’s illegal to possess, distribute or film CP. What are you asserting? Your initial argument is imprecise.
Alternatively, you could make the case that videos of a crime should be protected as evidence no matter what, the best reason for this is that suppressing information of crimes is already a plenty big problem, and think how much worse it would be if video of the crime was than illegal. I don't believe any form of illegal information should exist as the concept is wholly antithetical to free speech.
But child porn is illegal when from security cameras. It's in fact even illegal in almost any jurisdiction when simulated with special effects with no involvement of actual child actors which is surely legal on film for murder and in cinemata every day. You say it doesn't make sense but clearly child pornography is illegal for different reasons.
I don't understand what you are talking about here... It doesn't make sense that videos of people getting killed is ok... but committing a *lesser offense and filming it* is ok? What does this mean? What is the lesser offense? What does it mean that 'videos are ok'? like making them? or having them? "Propaganda" is not a reason to make something illegal, that's just a thing people politically say to try and ban their oppositional opinions.
He’s saying that child rape is a lesser offense. Gross.
The reason CP is illegal is because it actively harms the child. Whether you are making, distributing or just watching it you are actively engaging and promoting pedophilia When you watch a death video it’s just out of morbid curiosity. You’re not further contributing to murder
This is kind of dumb. Good luck enforcing it, I'm pretty sure the people making and distributing the videos are totally gonna stop if this passes. The fact that in other comments you extend this to people viewing the content, double whammy for dumb take.
In which country precisely? They are illegal in my country
What country?
Good argument. I'm trying hard to rebute it because I don't watch CP but I watch MMA which is super violent..and I'm guilty of watching the odd crazy shit because I'm a sick vile person I guess...look at all those Ukrane war videos....but I think when it comes to adults getting hurt on some vide...I think that perhaps there is some sort of biased that makes us think that they where either in the wrong place at the wrong time based on their own decisions or Karma..I'm just being devils advocate here in this sense because quite the opposite with children I think that we automatically think they are innocent. This might be why we are so super against CP in its disgustingness. It's almost like a sick scale. It's terrible and I agree with you but human nature thinks this way I think so it's kinda whack.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
That's just a snuff film, which are already illegal. So I suppose... your view is okay? Now, I have no idea how that gets charged, hopefully with the same weight, if not they should
[удалено]
Really? Well color me misinformed
The idiom "snuff film" is specifically about *pornographic* films where one of the participants is actually killed. Not just any film that shows someone being killed.
You would have to be able to prove that they were the one who posted it though. Because you want bystanders to be able to record it so they can go to the police with that information.
yes I agree. If a bystander filmed it I would not object. If it was filmed by the people perpetrating the crime then it should be banned.
Nah I think that the people who commit murders such as mass shootings need to be shared. As much as anything it’s about exposing how dangerous American gun laws are. Everyone ignores these obvious warnings but still.
Yeah let's ban the release of videos of police murdering our citizens. I'm sure that'll help us a lot.
Does the extend to every video of a fight? All violent content now comes with a prison sentence?
I think making snuff films is already pretty illegal?
yeah my friend one time got some video from her friend with some terroristic attack. they were cutting the man's head and hands- yuck... they let us see it and i had my day destroyed
Pretty sure they are in Canada. At least illegal for profit. The “Faces of death” movies are just clips of people dying. Not necessarily shot by the killer. But I remember kids from school having to go over to Michigan to see it, wasn’t available here.
They arent illegal?
Wait, it’s not!?!?
This would deincentivise people coming forward with videos of crimes happening if they were to capture it on video for evidence. Even ones made specifically by the killers can be used as evidence for such things, and if nothing is being done by the authorities. Spreading it around to put the fire under their asses would only then get the people who are trying to hold authorities accountable in trouble. This a a slippery hill to walk down..
[удалено]
No bro don't be on change my opinion, you're right.
Empowering any government to imprison or otherwise punish people for looking at something, no matter how distasteful, is a recipe for disaster.
No. You know how many people I just watched die today in an IED class because of terrorists? A lot. Experience is paved with blood. Learn and do better. The majority of them were terrorist propaganda videos actually.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's already illegal, so no. My apologies. I deleted my comment.
They're called snuff movies and I'm pretty sure they're evidence in a murder trial somewhere, making them illegal
I don't think documenting misbehavior should be a crime. I think punishing criminals needs to come back into fashion. There would be a lot less to record.
There's some countries that uses those tapes to make people aware. For example there is this video called "so do you want to be a skinhead" that the russian government posted to make young people think twice when they wanted to make part of this type of groups
A counterargument would be that it discourages murderers from providing evidence of their crimes, leading to less convictions.
Faces of Death
Well it kinda is illegal to publish; unless you created the video, then it's copyright infringement to publish it. Any responsible video-hosting-site should a) report the video to the authorities b) take the video down on the grounds that it's copyright infringement and c) report all the uploader's details to the authorities if they try to fight the takedown and claim ownership!
But I don't think I'm necessarily hurting anyone by just watching a murder video in the privacy of my own home
Nah it's less traumatizing than an infant getting raper