New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Chance]

To me, the issue of child porn isn't of ongoing harm but of future harm. If there's a market for it, there's incentive to produce it, and more children will be harmed in the future. The question then becomes, is the fame and status from live streaming murders promoting murders? I believe it is. Media celebrates mass murder.

That was my line of reasoning for the most part. But if we're going to make the argument that viewing footage of non-simulated violence actively encourages it, I have no idea where the line for that would be drawn. Do we draw the line at footage produced by the attackers, a la the New Zealand shooting, or ISIS mass execution videos? What about footage captured by someone/thing else, a la security camera footage? What about material concerning prior attacks, like a 9/11 documentary? I have no cogent approach to that.

If the argument becomes that you can't control information on the Internet, well, child porn is way more available then I would have believed.

Estimates are all over the place due to the way Tor operates, but researchers suspect its most popular hidden services are all related to child porn.

[RevolverRob]

Things have gotten weird in this thread.

But I will draw another distinction betweens video of senseless acts of violence and child porn.

Child porn is not only produced for profit, but it is produced for pleasure. (For the sick fucks who find it pleasurable).

Video of senesless acts of violence are produced to horrify, terrify, to enhance or promote a political agenda. I’m sure there are sick fucks who find it pleasurable, the general person is probably not among them. In the scheme of things the purposes of the acts of manufacture are inherently different. The motivations are different.

Though they have overlap in that they sicken most people.

Understand that this video is really no different in motivation than ISIS beheading videos.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The motivation for producing media is really irrelevant in a 1st Amend. context. Your motivation may be unacceptable to me and yes, you can be a sicko. However, that doesn't produce bans. The child porn exception is the crime in producing it with real children. If a media company hires folks to commit a violent act to sell it or to make a political message that also is a crime and showing the video is a crime. All in that chain should be responsible under the law. It's a conspiracy.

Some crime shows have simulated versions of a sexual assault and the real victims may even speak to make the points about the crime. The media company makes money on selling commercial time for that show. Is that a crime?

That a media presentation may lead someone to an act is also irrelevant as we don't know that to be the case with an evil action. The causality is mixed. The slippery slope is there. Some folks are dedicated atheists and think that religion is a major cause of violence in the world. Media presenting the existence of one group's view of deities is offensive to some. Do we ban them?

Every major religion has been used as a motivation for between group and intra-group violence. Should we ban religious media?

Some anti-gay folks were worried that seeing gay folks on the TV would cause Football playing Biff to stray from their team. They were horrified. Inter-racial romance was forbidden on the tube for quite a bit.

One's emotional reaction and one's cognitive reaction to 1st Amend. issues must be considered. Too easy to just rant.

However, we want gun representations in movies, matches that shoot humanoid targets, and the like. What do you ban?

[hufnagel]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...lf/3199924002/

Ardern said she "applauded" people who handed in weapons and encouraged more to do so. Some gun owners took to social media to share stories of giving up their semiautomatic rifles. John Hart, a farmer and Green Party member from the Wairarapa, said on Twitter he had owned a gun for 31 years.

"On the farm they are a useful tool in some circumstances, but my convenience doesn’t outweigh the risk of misuse," Hart tweeted. "We don’t need these in our country."

I'm just... I don't even...
disgusted
appalled
dismayed
those are words in my head right now. I can't form a coherent response. All I can think of is, thank the gods they're not my countrymen.
When New Zealand descends into the depths of hell, wishing they hadn't given up their arms, we shouldn't save them; let them be a warning to others.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's happened here.

https://abc13.com/despite-backlash-f...ar-15/3123652/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b013b0977debe1

To be real, I doubt NZ will descend into the depths of hell. Their demographics argue against an apocalyptic fate for them.
Also, who would we be saving them from? Certainly, we shouldn't intervene into another country for criminal behavior problems.
Invasion by the Chinese? Well, the Chinese get far enough to try to duplicate the Japanese expansion of WWII, we have deeper troubles than whether some NZ folks have AR-15s.

Sorry to be a downer on rhetoric, but if we want to make our case - we need not to go off the rails.

[TMW Trav]

The posts here have a lot of good point, counterpoint which makes me think. That said, if there is a push to ban this video from the eyes of the public, for some odd reason that makes me want to see the video. The thought of seeing helpless people gunned down is not inviting at all. The thought that my choice to see it isn't my own choice makes me curious and more interested. I don't know anything about NZ and had no idea it was a Muslim or Christian country.

[revchuck38]

Anybody remember The Running Man with Arnold, where the government produces a fake video of him using a helicopter gunship to kill a bunch of civilians so they can have a scapegoat?

"What happened to Buzzsaw?"

"He had to split."

[BehindBlueI's]

The motivation for producing media is really irrelevant in a 1st Amend. context.

I've got to disagree there. The law is explicit that motivation matters. My state law on child porn includes the caveat, " Possession... that lacks a literary, scientific, or educational reason..."

Things have gotten weird in this thread.

But I will draw another distinction betweens video of senseless acts of violence and child porn.

Child porn is not only produced for profit, but it is produced for pleasure. (For the sick fucks who find it pleasurable).

Video of senesless acts of violence are produced to horrify, terrify, to enhance or promote a political agenda. I’m sure there are sick fucks who find it pleasurable, the general person is probably not among them. In the scheme of things the purposes of the acts of manufacture are inherently different. The motivations are different.

Though they have overlap in that they sicken most people.

Understand that this video is really no different in motivation than ISIS beheading videos.

How sure are you Joe Average doesn't find it pleasurable? As Don Henley reminds us, it's interesting when people die. Violence sells at least as well as sex. What's the point of rubbernecking at an accident scene? I'd suppose you're familiar with this already, but it was something I ran across a few years back:

http://www.drjoonyun.com/published-a...rubbernecking/

people driving by a car accident turn their heads to look. In nature, an organism that does not tune to signals of carnage is ignoring potential useful cues of threat in their vicinity and could be subject to elimination. Our tendency to rubberneck trauma, thus, is an adaptation inherited through evolution through the survivorship bias of those who attended to cues of stress that can improve our Darwinian fitness.

Violence sells, so there has to be a market.

I've got an emotional response to the differences, but I'm not sure I could spell it out logically.

[the Schwartz]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...lf/3199924002/

Ardern said she "applauded" people who handed in weapons and encouraged more to do so. Some gun owners took to social media to share stories of giving up their semiautomatic rifles. John Hart, a farmer and Green Party member from the Wairarapa, said on Twitter he had owned a gun for 31 years.

"On the farm they are a useful tool in some circumstances, but my convenience doesn’t outweigh the risk of misuse," Hart tweeted. "We don’t need these in our country."

I'm just... I don't even...
disgusted
appalled
dismayed
those are words in my head right now. I can't form a coherent response. All I can think of is, thank the gods they're not my countrymen.
When New Zealand descends into the depths of hell, wishing they hadn't given up their arms, we shouldn't save them; let them be a warning to others.

Those who've decided turn in their firearms (without so much as a government demand or legislation) were never going to be a problem in the first place.

Such is the liberal mentality: Punish thyself for offenses committed by another.

Wow.

[NH Shooter]

Those who've decided turn in their firearms (without so much as a government demand or legislation) were never going to be a problem in the first place.

It was probably a Del-Ton.