7 ms·

The argument is that the child is revictimized with each viewing. Wouldn't it be the same for a murder victim? The argument is that distributing child sex abus

The argument is that the child is revictimized with each viewing. Wouldn't it be the same for a murder victim? The argument is that distributing child sex abuse material creates a demand for more of it. Wouldn't it be the same for murder videos? There was a series of photos going around when I was a kid. A girl who died in a car accident. Horrible, gruesome, nightmare inducing photos of the aftermath were shared. The family was victimized by those photos being shared. We live in a time where vore, nude photos shared without the subject's permission, and AI nudification software are all illegal. Why should it be legal to share photos and videos of violent crimes and accidents? How is that any different?

wyrdcurt 5d ago
What precisely is your definition of gore? Could you define it in a way that makes it illegal to share images of murders and car crashes as entertainment, without criminalizing, say, journalists documenting a war?
- NDlurker 5d ago
  CNN covered the Daniel Pearl story just fine without showing the video. There's no good reason to share a murder video for entertainment just like there's no good reason to share a rape video for entertainment.
  - wyrdcurt 5d ago
    I didn't say there was a good reason, in fact I agree there is no good reason to share such videos for entertainment. I asked a specific question about your definition of gore, so I could try to engage with your opinion in good faith without making assumptions. But instead of answering the question, you dodged it with a cherry-picked example that doesn't represent every scenario that I'm considering. That makes me inclined to believe that your position isn't particularly well-considered. Maybe the reason you get downvoted whenever you bring this up while "nobody has a good argument on why it should remain legal" is because you don't provide enough substance for anyone to argue against...
    - NDlurker 5d ago
      Definition of gore would be something like photos/videos of people suffering from graphic bodily harm shared for entertainment purposes. Medical stuff shared in a professional setting is different. Crime scene photos shared during an investigation is different. I don't think anyone is arguing about what is and isn't gore.
      - defrost 5d ago
        So, a picture of someone "sleeping" with no obvious bodily harm isn't gore .. regardless of whether they're sleeping or whether they've been poisoned? Yesterday morning I watched, as I was weeding, a mobile abattoir operator stun, drain blood, skin, gut and hang in a portable cool room eight full weight sheep, turning them over at about 12 minutes per sheep - pretty decent pace. Later I helped make a bonfire to burn the eight sets of skins, heads, guts, trotters (which we shovelled and slung from a single axle trailer onto the wood pallets on top of the stacked wood underneath). Some of this was filmed and posted to my 91 year old father (by the land owner) - is that "gore" ?
        NDlurker 5d ago
        Yeah that's disgusting
        defrost 5d ago
        It's pretty routine. I'm thinking this is more about what you personally find disgusting and seeking to impose that PoV on everyone; butchers, nurses, first responders, farmers, etc. Which is understandable, but wrong headed.
        NDlurker 5d ago
        I was specifically talking about photos and videos of people who have been murdered or died in accidents. Those photos should not be shared for entertainment just the same as photos of children being raped should not be shared for entertainment. Yes, I do believe that killing animals is morally wrong, but that isn't what I was talking about.
mplanchard 5d ago
Thank you for sharing an argument. I for some reason was thinking more like medical gore, which I don’t think should be illegal, but I’m sympathetic to your argument re: violent crime. I don’t know that I agree about car crashes, though. I haven’t really thought about this before, so I don’t know where I’d personally draw the line, if at all, but I understand better where y’all are coming from now.

wyrdcurt 5d ago

What precisely is your definition of gore? Could you define it in a way that makes it illegal to share images of murders and car crashes as entertainment, without criminalizing, say, journalists documenting a war?

NDlurker 5d ago
CNN covered the Daniel Pearl story just fine without showing the video. There's no good reason to share a murder video for entertainment just like there's no good reason to share a rape video for entertainment.
- wyrdcurt 5d ago
  I didn't say there was a good reason, in fact I agree there is no good reason to share such videos for entertainment. I asked a specific question about your definition of gore, so I could try to engage with your opinion in good faith without making assumptions. But instead of answering the question, you dodged it with a cherry-picked example that doesn't represent every scenario that I'm considering. That makes me inclined to believe that your position isn't particularly well-considered. Maybe the reason you get downvoted whenever you bring this up while "nobody has a good argument on why it should remain legal" is because you don't provide enough substance for anyone to argue against...
  - NDlurker 5d ago
    Definition of gore would be something like photos/videos of people suffering from graphic bodily harm shared for entertainment purposes. Medical stuff shared in a professional setting is different. Crime scene photos shared during an investigation is different. I don't think anyone is arguing about what is and isn't gore.
    - defrost 5d ago
      So, a picture of someone "sleeping" with no obvious bodily harm isn't gore .. regardless of whether they're sleeping or whether they've been poisoned? Yesterday morning I watched, as I was weeding, a mobile abattoir operator stun, drain blood, skin, gut and hang in a portable cool room eight full weight sheep, turning them over at about 12 minutes per sheep - pretty decent pace. Later I helped make a bonfire to burn the eight sets of skins, heads, guts, trotters (which we shovelled and slung from a single axle trailer onto the wood pallets on top of the stacked wood underneath). Some of this was filmed and posted to my 91 year old father (by the land owner) - is that "gore" ?
      - NDlurker 5d ago
        Yeah that's disgusting
        defrost 5d ago
        It's pretty routine. I'm thinking this is more about what you personally find disgusting and seeking to impose that PoV on everyone; butchers, nurses, first responders, farmers, etc. Which is understandable, but wrong headed.
        NDlurker 5d ago
        I was specifically talking about photos and videos of people who have been murdered or died in accidents. Those photos should not be shared for entertainment just the same as photos of children being raped should not be shared for entertainment. Yes, I do believe that killing animals is morally wrong, but that isn't what I was talking about.

mplanchard 5d ago

Thank you for sharing an argument. I for some reason was thinking more like medical gore, which I don’t think should be illegal, but I’m sympathetic to your argument re: violent crime. I don’t know that I agree about car crashes, though. I haven’t really thought about this before, so I don’t know where I’d personally draw the line, if at all, but I understand better where y’all are coming from now.