Petition banning "Crush" videos

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Kim_Possible
Registered User
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:57 pm

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Kim_Possible » Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:25 pm

god0fgod wrote:No but the people who post the "crush" videos will most likely be supporting it.
So, now we have two people. Both people post "crush" videos. The one who uploads while thinking the videos are hilarious (sadistic teen) should be prosecuted, while the one who uploads while thinking they are horrible (PETA) should not be prosecuted? At this point it isn't really the video that is the crime but the thought that accompanies it.

I guess I don't have much confidence in the law to adequately determine which of my thoughts are criminal and which aren't.

User avatar
Techie-Micheal
Security Consultant
Posts: 19511
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:11 am
Location: In your servers

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Techie-Micheal » Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:09 pm

Kim_Possible wrote:
god0fgod wrote:No but the people who post the "crush" videos will most likely be supporting it.
So, now we have two people. Both people post "crush" videos. The one who uploads while thinking the videos are hilarious (sadistic teen) should be prosecuted, while the one who uploads while thinking they are horrible (PETA) should not be prosecuted? At this point it isn't really the video that is the crime but the thought that accompanies it.

I guess I don't have much confidence in the law to adequately determine which of my thoughts are criminal and which aren't.
Any crime comes with intent. What's the difference between manslaughter and murder? Intent.

I get what you are saying, but it is never as cut and dry as that.
Proven Offensive Security Expertise. OSCP - GXPN

Roberdin
Registered User
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 3:56 pm
Location: London, United Kingdom

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Roberdin » Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:48 pm

god0fgod wrote:The difference between the "honour killing" and the "crush" videos is that the "honour killings" are suicide and isn't murder. The people recording these videos are supporting the crime by doing so and the videos shouldn't be watched by anyone and so it should be illegal.
No, an "honour killing" is a murder committed purportedly in defence of some kind of honour, typically the supposed "honour" attached to a woman, that would be lost if she were allowed to continue her life as a non-virgin, or a wife of an undesirable. It happens unfortunately frequently, notably by non-integrated immigrants in western nations, and especially in the third world.

As has been articulately argued above, there are many occasions where crimes are filmed, and not necessarily for the purposes of detecting or preventing them. It is less than reasonable to expect we could outlaw the recording, or distribution of recordings of all crimes.
Techie-Michael wrote:Any crime comes with intent. What's the difference between manslaughter and murder? Intent.
Intent of what? We could hope to prove that a person intended to acquire a recording when it came into his possession, but that is an entirely different question to proving that he intended to enjoy watching it for sadistic purposes. Such a law would effectively create a "thought crime", doubtlessly a dangerous precedent.

User avatar
Techie-Micheal
Security Consultant
Posts: 19511
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:11 am
Location: In your servers

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Techie-Micheal » Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:11 pm

Roberdin wrote:
Techie-Michael wrote:Any crime comes with intent. What's the difference between manslaughter and murder? Intent.
Intent of what? We could hope to prove that a person intended to acquire a recording when it came into his possession, but that is an entirely different question to proving that he intended to enjoy watching it for sadistic purposes. Such a law would effectively create a "thought crime", doubtlessly a dangerous precedent.
You took my quote out of context. :P I'm not saying that someone acquiring a recording should be prosecuted or not be prosecuted.
Kim_Possible wrote:So, now we have two people. Both people post "crush" videos. The one who uploads while thinking the videos are hilarious (sadistic teen) should be prosecuted, while the one who uploads while thinking they are horrible (PETA) should not be prosecuted? At this point it isn't really the video that is the crime but the thought that accompanies it.
Proven Offensive Security Expertise. OSCP - GXPN

Kim_Possible
Registered User
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:57 pm

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Kim_Possible » Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:17 pm

Techie-Micheal wrote:Any crime comes with intent. What's the difference between manslaughter and murder? Intent.

I get what you are saying, but it is never as cut and dry as that.
I understand that, but intent is much easier to determine (though never truly easy) than what we are talking about here. Because in the video upload case, the intent between the two people (the PETA activist and the sadistic teen) is substantially the same: to upload the video to the internet to make it visible to the public. And we still haven't established whose intent matters (the maker of the video, the uploader, or the viewer).
Roberdin wrote:Intent of what? We could hope to prove that a person intended to acquire a recording when it came into his possession, but that is an entirely different question to proving that he intended to enjoy watching it for sadistic purposes. Such a law would effectively create a "thought crime", doubtlessly a dangerous precedent.
I agree.

A better analogy, Techie-Micheal, to make your case, would be our current hate crimes laws (though these are also not without controversy).

Case 1: Guy A kills guy B by intentionally shooting him with a gun. As he shot him, he thought, "He looks rich; I'll bet he has a fat wallet on him." That is a severe crime in the eyes of the law.

Case 2: Guy A kills guy B by intentionally shooting him with a gun. As he shot him, he thought, "He looks like a Jew; all Jews should die . . . and I'll rob him" That is a more severe crime in the eyes of the law in many jurisdictions (even if he also robs him) . . . not because the act was any different (his intent was to murder guy B with a gun and take his wallet), but because of what he was thinking when the crime was committed.

A situation that accurately reflects this distinction has actually happened in the state in which we used to live. A creepy man was photographing teenage boys playing basketball. He was arrested and found to be only in possession of pictures of teenage boys with their shirts off. But the judge found that because the defendant was sexually aroused when he looked at the otherwise perfectly legal pictures, they became child pornography to him, and the man was sentenced to 8 years on the manufacture and possession of child pornography (pictures of teenage boys with their shirts off). Someone else could take, possess, and distribute those exact same pictures and they would be perfectly legal.

We all may agree that we are much safer with creepy people in jail (or puppy stompers), but I find the criminalization of thought a very disturbing proposition. And with that, I am going to go back to just reading this topic. I have already violated my cardinal rule to not discuss politics or religion on the internet enough for one day. :D

Kim_Possible
Registered User
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:57 pm

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by Kim_Possible » Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:17 pm

Coincidentally, I just received an email dealing specifically with "crush" videos from an acquaintance of mine who is an animal rights activist. The email specifically instructed concerned citizens to download any "crush"videos they find on the net so they can be forwarded to PETA.
What can you do?

1. If possible, download the video file to your computer, and send it (along with the url of the page and any user information that may be included) to info@peta.org. Do NOT complain to the site owner until this has been done, otherwise they may remove the video, and then animal protection agencies have no evidence to work from.

2. If the video is posted on a community website such as MySpace, e-mail the website's support team, reporting it as inappropriate and offensive.

If a video has made it to MySpace, however, there is a good chance it is already posted on one of the gore sites. On sites that are clearly geared towards displaying offensive content, sending an angry letter to the webmaster will typically not help. Those sites make money on advertising, so the more offensive their content is, the more website hits it usually gets. In short, their most disturbing videos are their bread and butter, and it is unlikely that they will remove a video that is getting such strong reactions.

3. For gore sites, to find out who owns the domain name, and where the website is hosted, use a lookup utility such as samspade.org or dnsstuff.com. You may try e-mailing or calling the website hosting company, however gore sites have been known to host videos such as unedited human beheadings, so the chances are good that the website host is already aware of the content and simply does not care.

narqelion
I've Been Banned!
Posts: 7235
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Petition banning "Crush" videos

Post by narqelion » Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:49 am

Kim_Possible wrote:Because in the video upload case, the intent between the two people (the PETA activist and the sadistic teen) is substantially the same: to upload the video to the internet to make it visible to the public.
Not really. The intent of the sadistic teen would be to promote it and perhaps even profit from it whereas the intent of the PETA activist would likely be to stop it, albeit that would be fairly stupid and self-defeating as the last thing you should ever do is give attention to someone or something that is sustained on it. Comfortable with it or not, intent is and has long been intertwined in our legal system and I do not see that as a bad thing. :)

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”