Censorship on the Internet: I never thought I would ask this question, but should there be limits?

[Mike 03]

Very recently I realized there are some horrifying things on the internet that I could never even imagine seeing.

I was researching the Wonderland homicides that occurred in the 80s in Hollywood, and received this link to a site that had footage from the crime scene. When I clicked on the home page, there was a menu of "most popular videos" and the number one most popularly watched video was actual video of a man being killed, although I didn't know (or believe) it when I clicked on it.

Sure enough, it was video of a man being murdered with a hammer, taken by the killers.

Because I am dumb but curious I also watched video:

Video of a woman dead impaled my spears, source unknown.

From Russia, video of a man being decapitated for originating from another race.

A man believed to be guilty of a rape stoned and beaten to death and then set on fire.
From Africa: Five "Witches" burned alive.

Suicides.

The aftermath of rapes and murders.

Bear baiting in Pakistan.

And more.

These images gave me cold sweats and nightmares, and I wish I had never seen them. I didn't even know it was legal to post this kind of stuff, but I guess as a result of the advent of the cell phone that takes pictures, this was inevitable.

As I said, I blame myself for watching.

But I think this is a legitimate question, and I really want to know what the people here at DU think about these images. I am old enough to take responsibility for choosing to watch what I watch, but I have a niece who is just now exploring the internet, and I would not want her to see these things.

Any thoughts?

Should they be available?

Should they be censored?

ON EDIT:

I really hope to God this doesn't turn into a fight. I just want honest opinions.

[hlthe2b]

1. Well, I certainly know that I avoided sites likely to have the US beheading

videos when they were being widely circulated a few years back. I just don't know how one keeps the internet free flowing, in terms of critical, if politically unpopular information, if one starts trying to censor. That doesn't mean that I don't wish they weren't out there. I cringe to think of the animal cruelty videos that must be there as well and the race/ethnic hate sites as well.

[Echo In Light]

8. Same here. And that's coming from one who questioned the legitimacy of that carefully timed incident

I dunno...my friends and I saw that first Faces of Death vid many yrs ago, and that was enough for me. I don't want those type of images seared into my consciousness.

[Ron Green]

2. When a market is left absolutely free (as the Internet mostly is), the natural result is

drugs, prostitution and gambling. And horrible images such as you saw. It's what people want when the "id" is in charge.

It's also what the Wall Street guys do when there's no regulation.

[walldude]

3. Yeah we should have censorship. As soon as we can decide who should be

the Censor. Dude, there are people out there trying to remove Harry Potter books from libraries because they are "evil". Once you go down that road there is no turning back. We shuld be censoring ourselves. Turn off what you don't want to see, but don't try to tell others what they should or shouldn't see.

Oh and that snuff film? I seriously doubt it's real.

[tkmorris]

4. No they should not be censored

I hate "slippery slope" arguments, because they are so overused and often in situations they don't apply to, but this is a classic example of one. Yes, stuff like that is highly offensive to you and to me, but if you start outlawing things on that basis alone you have to realize that other things which offend other people (think Christian Evangelicals, hyper-patriots, law-enforcement types, Helicopter Moms, etc.) are also fair game.

FWIW there is a video series available at many video rental stores called Faces of Death, which shows pretty much the same clips. It's distasteful as hell, but I don't want to see it banned, and they pre-date the internet.

[Edweird]

5. Really? Censorship? Are you kidding?

[Fumesucker]

6. Who would you trust to take only the "objectionable" content off the internet?

Lots of people in the US think anything "liberal" should be censored, should they get their way?

[Electric Monk]

7. Don't go to rotten.com

If you don't want to see dead people, or whatever, don't search for them.

[Swamp Rat]

9. There should be no limits whatsoever - NO CENSORSHIP!!!

If someone uses the Internet to break the law, then they will be readily caught and punished.

[The Northerner]

13. +1

[eShirl]

10. As I recall, the "Faces of Death" series of videos were very popular at the local rental store.

For what it's worth, I favor parental controls over censoring the entire internet (which wouldn't work anyway).

[Mike 03]

11. I know that deep down I agree with most of you that there should not be Censorship.

But I hope we figure out a way to separate some content so that we have to demonstrate that we are not minors to access it.

Some of this stuff, once you watch it, you can't "unwatch" it. It is horrific.

I concede that Censorship in any form is dangerous.

[Mike 03]

12. Thank you for affirming my faith in basic principles here. NT

[myplace]

Censorship is fine, as long as it isn't done by the Government.

[jrt4]

14. Absolutely not.

For instance, you mention "aftermath of murders". Wouldn't that be convenient for the U.S. military to be able to ban the posting of photos of the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, so that nobody would be able to see what they are doing over there?

And WHO would do the censoring? YOU don't control the government, the wealthy do. So they would censor things in a way that benefits them. It's already bad enough with them being able to selectively present information through their corporate media outlets. It would be much worse if they could also censor ideas that they didn't like.

[NNN0LHI]

15. How many kids were fucked up by having the death photos of Saddam's sons on the news 24/7?

We will never know for sure but I would guess plenty of impressionable young minds were fucked up by that one.

Thanks Bush/Cheney and your complicit media.

Don

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Zero.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Why won't somebody stop me from watching all these horrible videos?

I'm reminded of the guy who complained about college-aged binge drinking, then proceeded to post a bunch of photos of scantily clad passed out women he had apparently been collecting as his own personal sexual fetish.

[Mike 03]

19. Well, I did stop watching them as soon as I found them. In fact, I abandoned a writing project

altogether based on this.

Like I said, I take complete responsibility for viewing these videos.

So, I have dropped the project entirely.

[LoZoccolo]

25. Someone who wants them censored isn't taking responsibility.

ON EDIT: I realized you weren't arguing for censorship.

[Journeyman]

18. There is "nanny" software you can use to shield children from the 'net. . .

Look in to something like that, to help put your mind at ease (but know that when they are old enough, or curious enough, children will find a way to see what they want).

I understand your concern but feel censorship is never the approach. This is certainly a instance where personal responsibility will have to be your guide.

[conspirator]

20. The Problem is not the Limits themselves, but who gets to write the Laws for those Limits

The rich corporatocracy will love to impose their rigged Laws on yet another Medium that would become under their Control.
So NO. I rather see Atrocities than Fascism.

[kimmerspixelated]

21. When it comes to violence-I absolutely think there should be

censorship. Some could say certain kinds of sex should be censored as well. I'm for removing all distrubing scenes. People that like horror movies are feeding their brains some awful stuff the subconscious remembers. But that's all supposed to be fiction. Real violent crime online-vomit worthy. We should quit feeding our kids brains with filth and I consider what you described as extremely obscene. You have a right to ask these questions, whether it gets flamed or not.

[unabelladonna]

34. i hate to admit it but i agree with you

political speech or sex should never be banned but when it comes to violence i believe there should be some control. i realize i'm going against the first amendment but......

[Greyhound]

39. Your kids, your responsibility. n/t

[Therellas]

22. I watched them all too...

a few terrorist beheadings as well.

i regret it somewhat.

[sharesunited]

23. Videos and viewing videos don't harm anyone. Meanwhile you can go buy a gun and kill dozens.

You are under much greater danger from the 2nd Amendment and merry misinterpretation thereof.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Actually our rights are more at risk from people like you intent on removing them

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

27. ??? Viewing videos is legal. Going on a killing spree is not.

Aside from child porn or unauthorized acess to classified material, viewing media on the internet is legal.
Going on killing sprees and killing dozens of people is not legal.
How are the two in anyway realted? Are you suggesting that, like internet media, killing sprees should be allowed?

You should really go see a shrink, man. Your gun paranoia is leaking all over out of the gungeon.

[-..__...]

29. While there is some element of truth to your observation...

(I mean video content not causing any harm to the viewer), there are plenty of examples where individuals (or groups),
have been motivated at least in part to engage in violent acts with the intent of recording them to share with others.

[sharesunited]

30. The means of recording was not the implement of death in those cases?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

35. Contributing factor.

Would you agree that bribing homeless people to fight each other and injure themselves in greusome acts (caught on video tape) is a criminal offense. If so, then the camera certainly contributed to, if not emboldened such unlawful behavior.

There is no end to stupid deadly stunts perform simply because the camera is rolling.

[sharesunited]

41. Does the law treat a video of two homeless men fighting

the same as a video of a child performing a sex act on an adult?

Right there is where we say the first amendment is delimited.

Right there is where we say anyone who views this is culpable in the crime.

[Kermitt Gribble]

24. NO censorship!!

You didn't have to click on those links. And people crying that their children might see this stuff are simply lazy or just plain bad parents - there are many tools available to keep kids away from this stuff. As a person without kids, I'm tired of irresponsible parents constantly trumpeting censorship. "Oh, but think of the chilllllldren..." :puke:

[kimmerspixelated]

43. Okay-well what about a situation where a parent does

everything right with controls, limits, etc., but the kid goes and spends the night, a sleepover with some kids who parents DON't use controls...Maybe GodAwful stuff shouldn't be allowed-period. I hate to go against free speech, but we eliminated Hitler-right? Should we have just let him go on, not wanting to violate any rights are anything...???

[depakid]

28. Facebook's had some pretty appalling problems lately

Can't see much that can be done about it, though.

Like most things- areas of the net will be drug down to the lowest, basest denominator.

[-..__...]

31. You think the violent stuff is horrifying...

there's some sexual/fetish related stuff out there that'll make your eyes bleed. :smoke:

[shraby]

32. I wouldn't advocate censorship, but instead of .com or

.org maybe a .death or .porn for those kinds of sites? They could probably be filtered by parents on a home computer to keep children from accessing them and to keep those of us who have no desire to accidentally see what offends us.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

37. ohhh, ".porn"... I like that. Maybe just ".xxx" (n/t)

[shraby]

33. delete..duplicate

[asdjrocky]

36. No.

[Greyhound]

38. Of course not. As you demonstrated, anything can be sought out by those who wish

to see this kind of obscenity, but censoring it only serves to allow people, like yourself for example, to believe it doesn't exist.

I think we have also seen the results of censoring "with good intent" often enough to know what a terrible idea it is.

[Withywindle]

40. My honest opinion is 'no.'

But should there be some accountability for posting extremely harmful material like you're talking about? I think there should be, though I don't have any great ideas about how to implement it.

Look at this way: Child porn is illegal. That's because not only is it a disgusting, disturbing image, but in the case of actual photos and videos, it's a document of a serious crime taking place. A child is being harmed, and you're seeing it for real. Porn with adult actors dressed as children, or artwork or comics, isn't horrifying in the same way (at least to me; your mileage may certainly vary).

Most people who watch gory horror movies are able to do so and enjoy them because they know it's not real. Most people who enjoy the films of, say, Tarantino, do NOT want to see REAL gory killings. And I think it is not OK, morally, to post videos of real people being really killed. It's a violation of privacy. I can think of rare exceptions where it served a higher purpose--some war photos, for example, or the young lady who was killed in Iran last year, really boosted awareness and mobilized people. But most pictures and videos of this type achieve nothing except a really, deeply sadistically twisted kind of voyeurism. Bad enough to be murdered, but having your death available on the internet for sweaty troglodytes to watch for pleasure....that's a whole other level of insult.

But then on the other hand, we live in a world shared by lots of people who seem to think that violence is just fine and dandy and the American way...it's OMG CONSENTING ADULTS HAVING SEX that will ruin children for life. If I don't want to give power to those people, I'd have to think damn hard before trying to claim it for myself. I'm not there yet.

[closeupready]

42. I forget the name of the site (someone else here has probably already mentioned it), but

back in the late 90's or early 00's, there was a site with gruesome execution footage and other stuff like that. I watched a guy get his arms and legs tied up and each limb attached to a vehicle, all of which then sped out in opposing directions. It's the kind of thing you see and then it haunts you forever, as you say. Or the beheading videos. :shudder:

Do I think these things should be censored? I don't honestly have an answer. I can understand people saying they wouldn't want their loved ones seeing these thing, but I wish that I - ME - hadn't seen these things, but I did, and I survived. I don't know if I would say I'm better for having seen how awful people can be to each other, but maybe I am.

I think good arguments can be made for and against, though I guess I would lean against censorship.