Freedom of Speech and First Amendment

[Nofuture]

Where should it end, the right for free speech etc.?

By accident I saw a very brutal beheading video on Internet. I wasn´t looking for such videos, I didn´t want to watch it, it wasn´t my decision, I feel abused by this violence and brutality. And of course I am angry about this.

This American site claimes that the First Amendment allows to show this.

You know what, if it really is so, to hell with this First Amendment then!!!

As I´ve said, I feel abused and I´d like to report this and I am looking for an adress of Internet watch in the USA.


One of reactions to this site:

"Korean Internet users have gone on collective hacking attacks on the website, saying, “We will punish a shameless website that is trying to commercialize the death of a man".

An Internet user resentfully suggested, “Let’s hack in to hang a Korean flag on the site... Spreading a video of the beheading is to ridicule the death of Kim Sun-il.” Korean Internet users have voiced concerns that a video of the beheading may be circulated around the world and this would be tantamount to killing Kim twice. Korean Internet users said, “Let’s join hands together to prevent the circulation of the video of Kim Sun-il who was killed undeservedly.”

 

[KoreBolteR]

meh.. they're kids.. they've seen breasts before, and they'll see them again, and then again (and even more if they have the internet)... its not like 2 seconds of a partially covered nipple is going to warp anyone.

excatly, how is a nipple flashed on tv gonna brainwash, or zombify a kid. :hmph:

in the UK, if a nipple was flashed on the tv before the 9pm watershed, us brits would be laughing at it. not protesting it. :naughty:

id understand if a live execution was accidentally broadcast..

but a womans breast.. hell its natural

Bliink, where would you draw the line? Every 5 year old has seen a breast, would you put a topless children's presenter on tv though?

I don't know about this first ammendmant stuff but i reserve the right not to turn on the tv at 4pm and see softcore porn on the television when all i want to watch is the Simpsons.

lol how can you compare a quick flash to a naked childrens presenter..?

i would say a topless presenter is softporn.
flashing a breast for 1 second isnt.

 

[Nofuture]

I still haven´t found any US site to report violence on Internet.
It seems to be that most violence sites come from US but nobody cares about this in the USA.

From the countries which do care, UK must be pointed out. There is an organisation for this, Internet Watch Foundation
http://www.internetwatch.org.uk.

But one can report the violence which is only hosted in the UK:

"Content you can report

The IWF has a specific remit to provide a hotline for members of the public to report incidences of illegal online content.
Illegal content in this instance is defined as:

images of child abuse hosted anywhere in the world.
criminally obscene images hosted in the UK.
criminally racist content hosted in the UK."


The site, which I was angry with, is had been discussed in the UK Parlament:

"The site gives the following excuse:

"Just like all the other uncensored videos and images previously posted, we feel that it is important to show what the human race is capable of in all its uncensored form. We don't MAKE you watch the footage, we just give you the choice [not true!]. This is the world we're living in right now, sad but true . . . .Can you handle life?"

...

Unimaginably horrible scenes are freely available to anybody who has had basic instruction on a computer.

To some sad individuals, that is purely entertainment, for whatever form of gratification; to impressionable children, it could prove traumatic and result in long-standing disturbed behaviour. At its worst, especially for people with a propensity to mental illness, it could serve to change their behaviour and promote copycat actions, or as an instruction manual for people committed to performing illegal acts of violence."

 

[Lemonking]

Should not be exposed to a breast? Come on....

But they can watch Rambo on network TV use an M-60 on a small town and kill the sheriff with it?

true
I wonder.....whats wrong with naked skin

 

[Laivasse]

I am opposed to the idea of censoring stuff simply because it is too horrifying for people to see. Everyone has different limits, and one man's stimulating literature is another man's murder instruction manual. It happens all the time when the moral media tries to attack video games - "Violent video games killed my son!" and suchlike.

The simple fact is that people who are influenced by such things can take their cue from literally 1000's of potential sources in today's society, and very few of those would actually be considered obscene even by the most rigid censors. The only way to stop dangerous influences reaching them is to encase such people in concrete and bury them somewhere under the Pacific Ocean.

If you've been traumatised by horrifying footage, then I sympathise. However, you have to be careful on the Net. If you're sensitive, doubly so. I too have been dumbfounded and suffered heavy mental impact from many things I have seen (and read) in my life. I consider my threshold to extreme scenes to actually be pretty low - in fact it affects me badly because I am always aware that humans are capable of these things and they do happen. The thing is - it's too bad. There's no point being naive about the world we live in or the people we can be.

If such footage comes without sufficient warning and there's a danger of it being seen by kids too young to understand it, then fair enough - action should be taken. However, stuff on the net is a special case, as it just cannot be effectively policed, and it shouldn't be, because efforts to do so damage our freedom more than they shield those who should be shielded.

 

[Laivasse]

Extra note: Such stuff can also be a good way to judge character. Someone shows you snuff movies on their laptop as a joke? You can tell instantly that they're a ****ing dickhead not to be socialised with.

 

[firemachine69]

Seems like hes really got himself to blame for that though really.

You can if you want say anything you want even today, but you just have to say it right.

It can be any colour as long as it's black.

 

[PvtRyan]

It can be any colour as long as it's black.

Coffee?

But it's truly moronic how the US makes a fuss about some nipple flash on TV. Big f*cking deal. We've got tasteful nudity (aye, I can understand how Janets tit is not tasteful, yuck) on commercials on public channels during the day, I have yet to see the first kid with negative side effects from this. Kids don't even see the sexual aspect of most things, and will at the very worst giggle when they see a nude person on tv.

Anyone who is offended by a tit being flashed should be beaten to death with a blunt object.

 

[Laivasse]

Just for an interesting contrast to the West:

I was surprised when in Japan to see films containing quite racy sex scenes with toplessness, bare arses, and maybe even muffshots (can't quite remember) but definitely lots of pumping, broadcast at noon and early afternoon! Admittedly it was on private cable, but it was a general interest channel with no sexy overtones, and it just goes to show....and interestingly it always seemed to be western films. Anything involving nude Japanese girls was on very late. Dunno what that signifies.

France is also pretty free about this kind of thing. Practically every French film ever made is a pseudo-porno. Neither country has had their society fall to pieces as a result, amazing as it may seem :dozey:

 

[mortiz]

Bliink, where would you draw the line? Every 5 year old has seen a breast, would you put a topless children's presenter on tv though?

I know I would.

 

[Calanen]

Im not too big on censorship - but there is some stuff that just has to be censored. Kiddy porn, snuff films.....the occasional breast on tv is no big deal, but pornography should not be on television when children are able to watch it.

You cannot just have a free for all on television and no censorship at all. Its just not sane to even suggest it.

 

[Pesmerga]

There's a difference between intelligent conversation and blatant useless blathering. Howard Stern is one of those guys who falls into the latter category. I am indifferent on his show, it's pointless, really, but each to his own.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

If only we were so free on this board to say what we please...<sigh>

But the liberals control what is said around here.

IMO it should be like Howard Stern... You Don't like it? Don't read it.

But instead censorship is your tool to make your eutopia dream that everyone agrees with you complete.

 

[bliink]

If only we were so free on this board to say what we please...<sigh>

But the liberals control what is said around here.

Give me a break.
Like anyone actually cares that much.

You just seem intent on being hostile at every opportunity, and thats what I do care about.