Internet sets them free...
-
I like the internet for several reasons... www.post-gazette.com/pg/03271/226452.stm[^] News media may withhold gruesome images, but Internet sets them free By Lillian Thomas, Post-Gazette Staff Writer Sunday, September 28, 2003 The graphic video and still images of dead and dying people that mainstream news organizations choose not to display inevitably find their way to the Internet, where they can't be killed. Some can be legally challenged, but even if a site is shut down, the image rarely goes away. "The Pearl video is a perfect example. Our clients had that up pretty soon after it was released. The rest of the media refused to show it. Government censorship is illegal, but this is a more subtle and, in my opinion, more dangerous form of censorship. A bunch of large corporations get together and say, 'We're going to censor this.' Technically it's legal, because it's private corporations making decisions, though there may be an anti-trust issue." Those who argue for showing such images say they have the power to change history. In the Guardian article, McCabe wrote that sometimes publishing a photo is the only way to prove to people that something happened. From photos of emaciated bodies and survivors of concentration camps, to the on-the-street execution of a prisoner during the Vietnam war, to starving children in Africa, photos of horrific moments of death and dying have made governments change their policies, caused people to change their minds or votes, or made individuals weep and forever change their perception of the world.
-
I like the internet for several reasons... www.post-gazette.com/pg/03271/226452.stm[^] News media may withhold gruesome images, but Internet sets them free By Lillian Thomas, Post-Gazette Staff Writer Sunday, September 28, 2003 The graphic video and still images of dead and dying people that mainstream news organizations choose not to display inevitably find their way to the Internet, where they can't be killed. Some can be legally challenged, but even if a site is shut down, the image rarely goes away. "The Pearl video is a perfect example. Our clients had that up pretty soon after it was released. The rest of the media refused to show it. Government censorship is illegal, but this is a more subtle and, in my opinion, more dangerous form of censorship. A bunch of large corporations get together and say, 'We're going to censor this.' Technically it's legal, because it's private corporations making decisions, though there may be an anti-trust issue." Those who argue for showing such images say they have the power to change history. In the Guardian article, McCabe wrote that sometimes publishing a photo is the only way to prove to people that something happened. From photos of emaciated bodies and survivors of concentration camps, to the on-the-street execution of a prisoner during the Vietnam war, to starving children in Africa, photos of horrific moments of death and dying have made governments change their policies, caused people to change their minds or votes, or made individuals weep and forever change their perception of the world.
Don't really agree with any of that. greghop wrote: In the Guardian article, McCabe wrote that sometimes publishing a photo is the only way to prove to people that something happened. In most cases, there is no doubt that something happened. Do we really need to see the inside of Jeffery Dahmer's refrigerator to know that he was killing people and eating them? This article implies that the answer is yes. The reality is that very few cases are disputed. greghop wrote: photos of horrific moments of death and dying have made governments change their policies, caused people to change their minds or votes, or made individuals weep and forever change their perception of the world. People can also be overly swayed by these images because they affect us more strongly than they should. I'm sure tyrants all over the world would love to show us gruesome images to sway our opinion. Saddam Hussein, for example, would show a few dead children from a US bombing, whip up the peace movement and keep himself in power - free to kill and torture civilians in greater numbers where there are no video cameras. The whole thing sounds to me a bit lawyer-esque. Some guy makes a buck showing these videos, but he claims that he is resisting censorship by the corporations and exercising his first amendment rights. He claims that there is something to be learned from all this. But, you know that's all a cover for filling his wallet with money. Reminds me a little bit of Larry Flint. ------------------------------------------ The ousted but stubbornly non-dead leader reportedly released an audiotape this weekend, ending by calling on Iraqis to, quote, "resist the occupation in any way you can, from writing on walls, to boycotting, to demonstrating and taking up arms." adding, "you know, pretty much anything I used to kill you for." - The Daily Show
-
Don't really agree with any of that. greghop wrote: In the Guardian article, McCabe wrote that sometimes publishing a photo is the only way to prove to people that something happened. In most cases, there is no doubt that something happened. Do we really need to see the inside of Jeffery Dahmer's refrigerator to know that he was killing people and eating them? This article implies that the answer is yes. The reality is that very few cases are disputed. greghop wrote: photos of horrific moments of death and dying have made governments change their policies, caused people to change their minds or votes, or made individuals weep and forever change their perception of the world. People can also be overly swayed by these images because they affect us more strongly than they should. I'm sure tyrants all over the world would love to show us gruesome images to sway our opinion. Saddam Hussein, for example, would show a few dead children from a US bombing, whip up the peace movement and keep himself in power - free to kill and torture civilians in greater numbers where there are no video cameras. The whole thing sounds to me a bit lawyer-esque. Some guy makes a buck showing these videos, but he claims that he is resisting censorship by the corporations and exercising his first amendment rights. He claims that there is something to be learned from all this. But, you know that's all a cover for filling his wallet with money. Reminds me a little bit of Larry Flint. ------------------------------------------ The ousted but stubbornly non-dead leader reportedly released an audiotape this weekend, ending by calling on Iraqis to, quote, "resist the occupation in any way you can, from writing on walls, to boycotting, to demonstrating and taking up arms." adding, "you know, pretty much anything I used to kill you for." - The Daily Show
It is lawyer-esque, but IMHO also important principle... Violence is just another form of porno & maybe it should be restricted somewhat. But how to write human language laws saying what can/can't be shown/said/printed ? What's offensive to 1 person is another's mid-morning snack !! IMHO society is having the same problem with "free speech" that it has with "gun control" laws, a messy controversial topic with seemingly sound principles but alot of individual victims too
-
I like the internet for several reasons... www.post-gazette.com/pg/03271/226452.stm[^] News media may withhold gruesome images, but Internet sets them free By Lillian Thomas, Post-Gazette Staff Writer Sunday, September 28, 2003 The graphic video and still images of dead and dying people that mainstream news organizations choose not to display inevitably find their way to the Internet, where they can't be killed. Some can be legally challenged, but even if a site is shut down, the image rarely goes away. "The Pearl video is a perfect example. Our clients had that up pretty soon after it was released. The rest of the media refused to show it. Government censorship is illegal, but this is a more subtle and, in my opinion, more dangerous form of censorship. A bunch of large corporations get together and say, 'We're going to censor this.' Technically it's legal, because it's private corporations making decisions, though there may be an anti-trust issue." Those who argue for showing such images say they have the power to change history. In the Guardian article, McCabe wrote that sometimes publishing a photo is the only way to prove to people that something happened. From photos of emaciated bodies and survivors of concentration camps, to the on-the-street execution of a prisoner during the Vietnam war, to starving children in Africa, photos of horrific moments of death and dying have made governments change their policies, caused people to change their minds or votes, or made individuals weep and forever change their perception of the world.
YOucan show them the pictures, you can show them the showers and the chambers, you can show them the records, you can make them meet people who survived, and they still argue that the Holocaust never happened. This is not about freedom of speech, this is about voyerism. Freedom comes with responsibility - in this case the responsibility to know when to shut up (visually speaking).
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen