Video footage of real killings - have you watched some?

8 pages and no mention of the icepick? Disappointing!

For those who don't know ... basically, Canadian gay porn star and general oddball Luca Rocco Magnotta decided to progress from making videos suffocating kittens with a vacuum cleaner and make a human snuff film. Well, that's one way to break up with your boyfriend! Clearly suffering from the galloping crazies, he decided to mail the severed body parts via courier service to political offices and primary schools. No, I'm not really sure why either. His previous partner was a female serial killer so I guess he's just unlucky in love.






It's 3 Ukrainian teenagers who wait on a quiet road for an old man to come past, ambush him and drag him down off the roadside into a woody area and then beat him to death with a hammer. If you're at all squeamish, avoid like the plague.

Have you watched video footage of real killings, for example showing the killing of prisoners held by ISIS, or the killing of Saddam Hussein, or the killing of anyone else?

Would you watch a video of a child being sexually abused?

Assuming you weren't involved in the abuse, what's the difference between that and watching a real life killing....yes its terrible what someone else did but surely just watching it and sharing it is fine, no....?

Surely watching it in person would not be equivalent? Nevertheless, I would contend that sexually abusing someone and killing someone are not equivalent; the first thing that comes to mind is that there are situations in which it is acceptable to kill a person, but sexual assault seems like it would be harder to justify.

How do I know there would be so many?

Because there are thousands of these videos online, posted to social media regularly, and most people wouldn't take the law seriously because the chance of being prosecuted would be miniscule.

8 pages and no mention of the icepick? Disappointing!

For those who don't know ... basically, Canadian gay porn star and general oddball Luca Rocco Magnotta decided to progress from making videos suffocating kittens with a vacuum cleaner and make a human snuff film. Well, that's one way to break up with your boyfriend! Clearly suffering from the galloping crazies, he decided to mail the severed body parts via courier service to political offices and primary schools. No, I'm not really sure why either. His previous partner was a female serial killer so I guess he's just unlucky in love.






It's 3 Ukrainian teenagers who wait on a quiet road for an old man to come past, ambush him and drag him down off the roadside into a woody area and then beat him to death with a hammer. If you're at all squeamish, avoid like the plague.

You're talking about this stuff like it's entertainment.

Thirty years ago snuff videos were underground, and many people if they knew or very strongly suspected that a person possessed or was distributing a snuff video would call the police, and the police would investigate. Most people saw possession and distribution of such material as sick.

What's changed? Well clearly one of the things that's changed is that snuff videos are now made widely available by social media companies. I don't think there was a big demand from people. And I don't see why the same won't happen if child pornography gets widely distributed by social media companies too. I am not saying there is a big demand for it. There obviously isn't. Most people think child pornography is sick and that the current law banning its possession and distribution is right. Many people will call the police if they know or strongly suspect that someone is distributing child pornography videos. But experience shows that when the social media and other internet companies start distributing videos that most people think are sick, soon many people get desensitised to them.

If the law changed and social media and other internet companies were not allowed to distribute snuff videos, the law could be enforced, just as the law on child pornography is enforced.

One could argue that the floodgates have opened, and that most young people have watched snuff videos nowadays, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be banned and that there couldn't or shouldn't be an educational campaign to try to right the damage that's been done to people. It's sick as hell to watch snuff videos.

Thirty years ago snuff videos were underground, and many people if they knew or very strongly suspected that a person possessed or was distributing a snuff video would call the police, and the police would investigate. Most people saw possession and distribution of such material as sick.

What's changed? Well clearly one of the things that's changed is that snuff videos are now made widely available by social media companies. I don't think there was a big demand from people. And I don't see why the same won't happen if child pornography gets widely distributed by social media companies too. I am not saying there is a big demand for it. There obviously isn't. Most people think child pornography is sick and that the current law banning its possession and distribution is right. Many people will call the police if they know or strongly suspect that someone is distributing child pornography videos. But experience shows that when the social media and other internet companies start distributing videos that most people think are sick, soon many people get desensitised to them.

If the law changed and social media and other internet companies were not allowed to distribute snuff videos, the law could be enforced, just as the law on child pornography is enforced.

One could argue that the floodgates have opened, and that most young people have watched snuff videos nowadays, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be banned and that there couldn't or shouldn't be an educational campaign to try to right the damage that's been done to people. It's sick as hell to watch snuff videos.

I really can't fathom how you're managing to equate child porn with videos of people being killed. Child porn is illegal because it encourages child abuse and exploitation, and humiliates the victims, not because it's "sick" and "desensitizes" people (whatever that means).

It's more practical to ban because it's far easier to define (do you want to throw people in prison for videos where it looks like someone dies but you aren't sure? What about a video where someone's already dead? What about a TV show where someone dies?), it's almost universally considered morally wrong (people will break laws that they think shouldn't exist), it's universally illegal and there's less of it.

The most important thing to note is that NOBODY IS HARMED BY VIDEOS OF PEOPLE BEING KILLED. I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp.

You insist that people are being "desensitized" but you've provided no evidence, and I don't think you could even explain why that's a bad thing.

You just want to force your puritan agenda on the whole country and imprison anyone that disagrees with you.

The law exists to PROTECT PEOPLE, it doesn't exist to force the population to adhere to your strict moral code.

Yeah. I feel nothing when people are killed- humans are scum of the earth and deserve to be wiped out.