god0fgod wrote:Oh right so this applies to the people who film it and not the people who do the act. Of-course that should be illegal to.
Before I would agree to something like that, I would want to know just how this law might shake out.
1. Just to whom would the prohibition against making a recording of a crime apply?
Obviously not law enforcement agencies (we still want to be able to watch America's Scariest Police Videos
). But what about news agencies? I was reading an international blog just this morning that was hosting a video of an awful "honor killing" in Afghanistan (which I didn't watch) to bring attention to the issue. Should making, hosting, and/or watching such a video be a crime? What about video that was made of the World Trade Tower "bombings." Are the people who made videos of that horrific, horrific crime complicit in the furtherance of a criminal act? And if you want to also give news agencies a pass, who gets to decide who is a "legitimate" news agency and who isn't?
2. If intent will play a role in the prosecution of this crime, whose intent matters?
In the honor killing video mentioned above, the video was made by the Taliban to demonstrate their triumph of righteousness. That is certainly not the intent of the person hosting the video, nor the disposition of the people who read and contribute to that blog. What if PETA (who loves to shock) wanted to host a video of puppy stomping on their website to shock and horrify the public into action? Would their "good" intentions make their hosting of the video not a crime while a sadistic teen who hosts it for a laugh should be prosecuted? What about the person who downloads the video? What if the sadistic teen downloads the video from PETA's website? Is that now a crime,though it would not be if an animal rights activist downloads the video?
3. What kinds of recordings do you want to be illegal and why?
Video recordings are being discussed, but what about audio recordings or still photos? What about textual recordings? What if a writer witnessed a puppy stomping, made a gruesomely detailed verbal description of it, and then made that text available via the web. Should that be illegal? What if someone who has never witnessed a puppy stomping wrote their own, equally gruesome fictional
story about puppy stomping? Would that be illegal too, since it is a substantially similar account? That is how we handle child pornography (at least in my state). Simulated (faked) child pornography is prosecuted just as if the participants were actually under the age of consent. Should it also be so for all other crimes?