Well, cite how old the readers are to your links.
It's not Nature
It's not Nature
Christchurch video...
- Thread starter Beer w/Straw
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
And yet it happens all the time regardless.
Be it murders, acts of violence, even non violent acts.
Believe it or not, you actually are not allowed to see whatever it is you may want to see, because some of what you think you want to see may be deemed illegal, too violent to show, pornographic, sensitive, etc.
In Australia, as a prime example, the media is not allowed to show images or footage of Aboriginals without going through a fairly stringent set of rules, as per their wishes, customs and culture.
As I noted previously, the media and government restricts access to various images and film, such as beheadings or mass murders. They do mandate what you can and cannot see.
I do not see anyone who posted here, complaining about the police not showing the kill shot of the Las Vegas shooter, for example, or the footage from inside the gay nightclub shooting in Florida, or the terrorist attack footage from the Bataclan in France. That footage is out there, security footage and other footage. But for some reason, 50 Muslims being murdered by being gunned down results in some individuals throwing down, abusing people, because they just need to see it? One's outed themselves as a truther. You are arguing it on the basis of free speech. There's no free speech issue here. To the one, it's in a different country, with different laws, cultures and norms. And to the other, free speech does not protect similar forms of film in your country. In other words, such footage is often classified, restricted and not shown in full to the public..
That doesn't really cut it.
Bells
Staff member
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Actually, that article expresses what they believe - notably, what only some of them believe, and that there is quite a bit of contention about whether it is effective or not.
"As scholars, professors and law enforcement professionals, we do not agree on everything," the letter reads. "Some of us believe that by denying mass shooters fame, we would deter some future fame-seekers from attacking. Some of us believe that by no longer creating de facto celebrities out of killers, we would reduce contagion and copycat effects. Some of us believe that by no longer rewarding the deadliest offenders with the most personal attention, we would reduce the competition among them to maximize victim fatalities."
There is at least some evidence for all these positions."
"A 2015 study suggests that a mass shooting increases the likelihood of an additional mass shooting in the two-week period following the incident."
But then ... "A more recent study was less supportive of the thesis of short-term contagion..."
"No evidence of short‐term contagion was found..."
"things happen all the time" is not a valid argument in favour of promoting something.
Otherwise, we'd just stop prosecuting tax evaders and speeders.
The rest of your argument is mostly "what about this example" - which also is not a defense.
"Trump avoids taxes, so it must be a good thing."
Also not a valid defense.
Last edited:
No, this is pathetic.
You give so many links, but you deny the truth to what actually happened?
Bells
Staff member
Really? Pretty sure I was addressing violent murders, with the exception of one comment about Australian media rules.
But please show me comments made by people, whining about "censorship" when the media and the state refuse to show these images or footage.. Yet we have truthers, demanding to see the video and whining about censorship because something somethingn"free speech" and "how do we know it happened" when the victims are Muslims and a country that is not America, where this terrorist act occurs, decides to deny the terrorist the fame he so desired, and deny white supremacists what they so desperately want? Not to mention prevent copycats and reduce the risk of inciting even more hatred..
Or do you want to make the argument that terrorism and mass shooting is an act of free speech and therefore should be shown?
Bells
Staff member
What truth have I denied?
Did you post a lank to the video?
You're scared and want to incriminate me.
You're scared and want to incriminate me.
Bells
Staff member
I am sure I am not the only one thinking this about your posts, but I'll say it..
What the hell are you on about?
Why would I post a link to the video?
And why do you think that everything that happens, and everything we say, somehow or other revolves around you?
Bells
Staff member
You mean like the part where you compared it to child pornography?
And then responded in regards to child marriage, when Dave correctly pointed out the differences between what we are discussing and child pornography.
You again went back to comparing it to child pornography.
Keep in mind, the discussion is pretty much about whether it should be legal to share videos or images of a mass murder. Sharing, disseminating, viewing, owning child pornography is illegal.
You are essentially comparing an orange to an elephant.
While I may differ from Dave's views in regards to New Zealand's laws, I believe that New Zealand should be free to legislate as they see fit in regards to their Constitution and what impositions they wish to place in regards to sharing and broadcasting images of a terrorist mass slaughter, I do agree with him in his opinion of how you are conducting yourself here.
Carrying on..
You once again go on about child pornography and then give us a spiel about how the victims of said terrorist act, the dead victims, did not consent to their images being broadcast as a form of argument.
I am pretty sure that if these victims knew they were going to be gunned down while praying at their local house of worship, the last thing on their minds would be 'ye gods, I hope this isn't shown on tv!'.
And you again compare it to child pornography.. Which I will remind you again, is not only illegal to make, but also already illegal to share, own, post online, etc.. While the video of a mass shooting is not technically illegal in say, the US, most social media outlets and media outlets have now tried to remove it from their platforms because of New Zealand's requests, and also because such videos are often in terms of their own ToS - refer to the video of James Foley's decapitation at the hands of ISIS, where the US Government requested that the video be taken down and not allowed on social media in their attempt to deny ISIS the attention it craved at the time. New Zealand have legislated this when it comes to this particular video, or more to the point, have ensured that video's of this nature, cannot be shared, etc, on their fair shores, as is their right.
But what are you going on about? Child porn.
Again, orange to elephant.
You then create another strawman, this time based on your previous strawman, to attack another member and accuse them of fairly horrendous (and outright false) things:
I am fairly certain that discussing things "on a level of intellectual psychology", does not equate or amount to making shit up to abuse and accuse people of the shit that you made up.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
None of which has anything to do with my point. This is more red herring argument.
It makes sense to limit viewership of inciteful content - if limiting viewership is actually effective as discouraging heinous acts.
So far though, other than "it seems pretty plausible to me" no one here has come up much about whether it actually does - in fact - have the desired effect - to deter future glory-hounds.
And I want to be darned sure it does before we start getting cheering for some ruling body to decide unilaterally for all of us what news we do and do not have access to.
I can't speak to that.
I speak of free access to news of world events.
To sum up, I'm a terrorist that likes murder child porn is the allegations that have been leveled at me.
But you haven't seen the video and you see fit to make judgement?
How are you dealing with it? Are you in therapy? Witnessing a traumatic event can cause PTSD.
Bells
Staff member
Well, I have not leveled any such allegations against you.
So I fail to see what my viewing the video has to do it?
Or are you simply confused again? Do you need a moment to go back through the thread? Because, once again, you seem lost and you are rambling.
New Zealand's government has deemed that it is worthwhile to ban the spread and sharing of that video on their shores.
As is their right and it falls within their laws and Constitution.
I fail to see how not limiting the video would not be harmful at this point. Enough evidence exists to suggest that it would give the killer fame and attention that he so desperately craved to begin with. Secondly, given the people he is appealing to, and the threats that exists from these people, few have provided any evidence to suggest that not limiting access to the footage would be beneficial at this point in time.
If you are concerned about how the US government conducts itself in such matters, perhaps you can start a movement to have the US government lift its demands in regards to the decapitation videos of American citizens at the hands of ISIS. Given your government has a history and record of restricting access and banning photographs and footage of returning dead soldiers for politics, you'll excuse me if I take the outrage against New Zealand banning the footage of a mass shooting from spreading with a massive grain of salt.
You still haven't explained what is to gain in this particular video being shared and viewed though, even in lieu of other such footage being banned in the past in the US and on social media platforms because they breach their rules.
Do you care?
No.
I'm curious. And this would certainly be an issue if everyone followed your recommendation.
You might want to rephrase that.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Nor do I need to. I need not justify why I want to exercise a freedom of my choosing. My gain is my business.
The onus is on you to justify why you think it's OK to take away my right to access word news in a society.
Why?