How to get website banned from country due to sick content?

If it's on the 'Deep Web' (ie if it's a hidden ToR service) then no. Otherwise, you might as well have a try at getting it shut down - talk to local authorities.

You would have better luck with the ISP than with the police / local authorities.

But where does that stop? Should authorities be able to shut down a web site just because some people find it objectionable? So far that hasn't stopped the proliferation of porn sites. It's a bit like free speech -- I may not like what you say but you have the right to say it.

I wouldn't read too much into what people say on those types of sites anyway. They all know they are anomonyous posters so they say almost anything that pops into their sick minds. Would they do it in real life? Changes are, no.

I wouldn't read too much into what people say on those types of sites anyway. They all know they are anomonyous posters so they say almost anything that pops into their sick minds. Would they do it in real life? Changes are, no.

True. There are many troll sites on the web, where all of the posters may be one person.

no offence ... but is this site perhaps
www.youtube.com
or
www.imdb.com
?

about each and every movie produced these days has murder, rape, ...

let's face it: it's what the 'audience' expects. even if you manage to 'shut down' the site, within the day the contents 'll pop up on another.

Once you start shutting down websites because someone doesn't like them, very quickly the entire web is shut down.
There's a lot of people who think "freedom of expression" should not include that freedom for everyone who thinks differently from themselves.

Hey guys, I feel like some of you perhaps didn't fully read what I said/compared this to porn.

A guy committed a gruesome murder on tape that included cannibal (this is real life and not fiction) then sent it to the owner of this website to put up, and other users of it gain entertainment from these videos - and encourage similar behaviour.

I'm all for freedom of speech but when videos showing inhumanity, violence, real murders of humans/animals then that is where the line should be drawn. Porn is a consentual form of entertainment by all parties involved. The taking of human or even animal lives in disgusting ways and recording them to share with the community of equally sick people is most definitely not.

Life is sometimes curel and inhumane, if you don't want to watch it then don't. Most of those Al-Qaeda animals could care less about human life. And least we forget, our countries have a lot of sickos as well.

Here is an article about recent cannabilism reports. A couple of songs have even been written about one of the cases.

Life is sometimes cruel and inhumane, totally understood. Also - I won't be watching any of their videos or visiting their site or sharing the link with anyone else to ensure they don't get any extra traffic. But this kind of websites just promote and encourage these kind of acts in the future which is why I'd rather it be taken off.

I'm going to second Dani's comment. But here's a nice little article that you might find useful: http://www.ehow.com/how_6371602_website-shut-down.html

I'm all for freedom of speech, expression, etc.. However, there are things that cross this line. Its not really that hard to figure out what is acceptable vs not. Sure, there can be debate on certain scenarios...

With regard to videos of actual murders, etc... the last time I checked, these are crimes. I dont see how posting these videos on the Internet would fall within the freedom of speech category.

This should not be compared to porn. Pornography is not a crime.

Here's another example...so if a religion allowed for people to have sexual contact with minor children, it would then be acceptable to post the videos on a web site... due to freedome of religion/expression? please..

Sometimes we find these things acceptable because they aren't close to home. I suspect that if your child, parent, or close friend was murdered, or tortured or was a victim of a crime, having the video online wouldnt be acceptable to you.

Again, I am a firmly beleive in freedom, but sorry... i cant agree with the general responses in this thread.

Totally agree with JorgeM, you put it better than I did. Freedom of speech can still be superseded in certain cases, like this one.

Obviously, people who commit murder ought to be prosecuted, and if a site receives footage or pictures of a real murder, then the site owners must report the footage to the appropriate authorities, otherwise, they are being complicit in the act and/or are obstructing justice (depending on jurisdiction).

That said, if they have complied with the law in that sense (either reported the footage, or obtained it after the murderer was prosecuted), then I believe that they can publish the footage essentially to the same tune as any other video footage. However, this means that the footage is still subject to normal consent to publish rules, meaning that people who are the subject of the footage (including the victim) must consent to the publication. I believe that in the case of footage of a murder, the family of the victim has the right to demand that the footage be taken down or censored. This is not about the free-speech of the site's owners, but about having the consent of the victim or his/her family / next-of-kin.

The issue with that though is that this generally requires the victim / family to come forth and request the take-down. That's just how it works (same as for TV footage and everything else). And because these sites are "hidden" in the dark corners of the internet, I doubt many people ever get notified that such footage concerning them (or a loved one) even exists.

I would agree that we could have laws that say that for such gruesome footage, it should be considered that "by default" the victim does not consent to publication, rendering any publication of such footage only possible under explicit approval by the victim / family, as TV reporters do when they want to show some part of a gruesome footage on TV (which they obviously heavily edit and censor, out of respect for the victim and the audience). Maybe such laws exist, I don't know. But if there is, then there is cause to shutdown the website. Otherwise, it must be done on a case-by-case basis, by initiative of the victim / family.

And then, as always with internet stuff, you have to worry about the jurisdiction they are in. The site is obviously subject to the jurisdiction they are in, which may be beyond your control and have fewer laws prohibiting the publication. That's just the general "wild west" nature of the internet. There isn't much you can do about that.

You could provide the URL to blacklist database maintainers. These are the kinds of databases used by parental control software and browser extensions. I think that this is the best thing to do, and they might have more experience with knowing what to do when the site's content goes beyond "obscene" and into the "potentially illegal" realm.

I think it's generally better to just hand it over to people who might have dealt with this before, rather than trying to figure out which authority to contact, as you might be wasting your time barking at the wrong trees. But beware that the answer you're most likely to hear from all sides is "we can't do anything about it". That's why I would think that adding the URL to popular blacklists used for parental control is probably the best thing you can hope for. And chances are, it's already on there.

As for the despicable people who comment on those sites, well, that goes in the realm of free-speech. They are despicable, no doubt about that, but they have the right to express their views. The normal limits still apply, that is, directly inciting people to commit criminal actions is not acceptable under most free-speech laws. If some members are actively and repeatidly encouraging criminal / hateful acts, then I believe they can be prosecuted for it in most jurisdictions. But other than that, there isn't much that can or should be done, because free-speech is too valuable to be infringed, even in the most unambiguously despicable cases.

You would have better luck with the ISP than with the police / local authorities.

I don't agree. I don't think ISPs should be allowed to block websites / domains / servers. And I don't think they are allowed to (currently) in most countries (i.e., "free" countries). The more totalitarian countries obviously do allow it or even control it, such as China, Iran, the UK, and they are trying to do so in the US too.. But I don't agree that they should. I don't think it is the ISPs job to enstore nationwide "parental controls" or worse.

But I do agree that local authorities / police cannot do anything at all, this goes without saying. If you think that your local police has any power on regulating what you have access to on the internet, you don't understand anything about how the internet works.

Hey guys, I feel like some of you perhaps didn't fully read what I said/compared this to porn.

A guy committed a gruesome murder on tape that included cannibal (this is real life and not fiction) then sent it to the owner of this website to put up, and other users of it gain entertainment from these videos - and encourage similar behaviour.

well ... believe it or not, but there are cultures where such are deemed 'normal behaviour'. yes, even in the 21th century, not all cultures hold the same morals and values.

plenty of places where persons commiting murders for honour are considered somewhat of heroes, where as people who do not kill their children if they have an 'alternative' sexual preference, as outcasts, weaklings and failures.

as far as 'A guy committing murder' .. there are tons of 'staged murder' video's out there. so, before judging anything: do you have proof that there is an actual murder, and not just some college students laughing themselves numb?

if the site offends you, my guess the best thing you can do is: don't surf to it again. want to "bring it down"? hope they have the site running on a server in a country where there are laws that might put a stop to it. there are enough countries that don't have such laws.
and even if it does, they'll have it up and running on a new server in no time.

Tell me which culture prides itself on murdering/torturing and/or capturing it on tape.

There is a huge difference between a staged murder video and a real one, special effects still are at best 80% convincing, when you see the real thing you know it was the real thing. I watched one video and did my research to finding a legit website, and it was indeed a real thing that police had been investigating into. Hell for one of them the suspect was even captured.

somebody being arrested doesn't necessarily means a crime has been committed.

as for your first question: I've speen plenty of interviews with men who murdered their own daughter/sister, because she was raped, and thus 'shamed the family'.

at this very moment, catholic priests (Syria, remember?) are being beheaded, their deaths are filmed and put online. yes, it is gruesome, yes it is terrible, yes, it is stonecold murder and yes, it does happen.

not even a year ago (if I'm not mistaken) I read an article about a young muslim in the UK that raped a girl younger than 15, and assumed it was 'not a problem', since his imam had been teaching that women and girls are lesser objects, only on the planet to 'serve men'.

just because something is ver, VERY wrong, does not mean it doesn't happen (more than anyone would like to believe)

Assuming these sites are hidden in the dark corners of the internet, which they are, you would have had to have been specifically looking for it to 'stumble' apon it to then even start this debate.

My question is: why were you looking?

My question is: why were you looking?

There are 'community watch'/'militia' type movements popping up with the express purpose of helping the authorities/society crackdown on illegal behaviour online. Some include finding and exposing gore sites to get them shutdown, others try to entrap child-molestors/predators. Generally the police prefer these groups to tip them off (so they can gather proper evidence & prosecute them) rather than try and take mob-justice by publicly shaming them.

AgileMind: yes, the do exist, but they wouldn't need to create a Thread asking what to do with the information, they would already know.

"Assuming these sites are hidden in the dark corners of the internet, which they are, you would have had to have been specifically looking for it to 'stumble' apon it to then even start this debate.

My question is: why were you looking?"

It was commented on by a friend of mine on a social networking site, so I curiously watched the video, realised the content, googled it to find out more information and most of the links were to this website. And this one isn't on the dark fringes of the Internet - it's actually quite a well known website. In fact it's founder was recently arrested for not telling the police about a murder posted - for withholding information but released. Apparently the country it's ran in don't really have great laws regarding such things.

Also I think it's not the right thing to mention "a muslim man..." or "a catholic priest..." when mentioning their cruel actions. The only correct word in that case is 'a psychopath' - everything else just creates negative stereotypes.

asif... if you had followed the news, you would have known I was correct in those statements.
I didn't use 'muslim' in the sense of an "all muslims are evil" argument, for I know for a fact that that is simply not true. yet there are those who are 'misguided', if that's the word by their specific religion under influence of a priest/imam/... that merely impresses his own interpretation of scripture on young minds, and in this case, it wás a muslim (not a psychopath at all) that was listening to the wrong religious leader (now that one might have been a nutjob)

I didn't use 'catholic' as a "all catholics are victims and must be saved" argument, because I'm well aware that that's a load of ... just as well. I merely used it here, because it wás indeed a catholic priest, and he was not killed because he posed a threat in the war, he was killed (in a very horrible way) because he wás a catholic priest. Simply having another religion was enough to be considered a heathen and being put to death, and, unfortunately, a lot of those "JIHAD! JIHAD! I give my life to Allah" (again: not an anti-muslim/islam sttement, rather an anti-extremist (of any religion) statement) do consider this to be normal behaviour, simply because they were brought up to do so.

you may think it is not right to use those terms, but they were (in those cases) the truth, so why not using them?
as you said: the only correct word in such case is psychopath: well: again... in Syria: yes, no doubt. but that young man that raped that girl was not a psychopath. so, no, it is not the only correct and always suiting word.

I never thought you did use it in a derogatory/stereotypical manner - which is why I said it creates negative sterotypes and more often reinforces already existing ones in people (people that read/listen to what you say).

"you may think it is not right to use those terms, but they were (in those cases) the truth, so why not using them?"
In these cases it may also be true that these people may have had other attributes such as.. I don't know... having a job occupation as a farmer yet I rarely hear "a farmer did X" it's more often "a muslim did X" even though, as you said, in these cases those are the truths. If you must say the latter for some reason then mention the full truth i.e. "a muslim under influence of a corrupt imam did X".

the imam tought him (and I quote) that women are as valuable as a lollypop you discarded. no matter how sick the imam is or was, he was an 18 year old boy/man, that should have realized that raping a 13 year old girl is wrong.

but, in his culture, whether it was under influence by a corrupt minded imam or not, those preachings were apparently accepted by that community, that's the point I'm trying to make.

there are very sick communities out there, that have their own cultures and habbits, both good and bad. for instance: all I have to do is compare the laws here (Belgium) about how women are allowed to be dressed outside, with those in Mumbai (for instance).

just because you can't believe there's actually someone on the world that believes something, that doesn't mean that there aren't countries where that (for you) strange 'belief' is anything less than the law to follow.

Actually guy above me. These users had accounts and what seemed to be actual profile pictures.

I think consentual stuff does not need to be banned. Porn where all parties sign a contract is consentual. Murder... well, hardly ever.

Should authorities be able to shut down a web site just because some people find it objectionable?

I agree that content cannot be taken down just because some people judge it objectionable, even when "some people" is actually the vast majority of people. However, the law can deem some things to be objectionable, in an objective sense. Now, this is a territory that ought to be treaded carefully.

To me, one minimum requirement is consent of the people involved. If you have a video / picture, there is must be consent from all the people involved (recognizable). Consent can be tacit or explicit. This is the way it works everywhere and I think it makes sense. Tacit consent is automatically implied until otherwise expressed. Meaning, if you shoot a video of me, you can publish it until I tell you not to or to take it down because I don't consent to it. In the case of a video or picture of a murder, it's a problem because the victim is no longer there to object, so, I think that consent should either fall to the family and / or require explicit consent before publication.

This is a purely objective legal stance that does not require making a judgement on whether the content is "objectionable" or not. That's why I think it's the best way to judge this situation. And it leaves the "free-speech" can of worms out, as well as all the cultural relativism that stultuske brought up.

Some things are just not a matter of free-speech, even though some people want to throw that card at every occasion. This is not a matter of free-speech.

So far that hasn't stopped the proliferation of porn sites.

Yeah, that's right. The situation here is completely different, of course. A porn video is produced and published with consent from all participants. The act of making that video is prefectly legal (in most jurisdictions, at least). And the judgement by some people that this content is "objectionable" is a very subjective judgement, and the number of people who find it objectionable is certainly not anywhere near the absolute majority (100%). So, in my opinion, this is a non-issue.

But in this case, it relates to free-speech in the sense that you expressed it: "I may not like what you say but you have the right to say it". You may not like porn, or find it highly objectionable, but your opinion on the matter has no bearing on people's right to publish it.

Also I think it's not the right thing to mention "a muslim man..." or "a catholic priest..." when mentioning their cruel actions. The only correct word in that case is 'a psychopath' - everything else just creates negative stereotypes.

There is a fine line between "not reinforcing negative stereotypes" and "burying your head in the sand". Stultuske made references to cultures or sub-cultures that consider certain acts acceptable; acts which most people would judge as being unambiguously despicable. He was not talking about psychopaths or other crazies, but about cultures or sub-cultures that reinforce certain despicable practices and values. These are two distinct groups. And you can't ignore the existence of that second group, nor that many/most of them associate themselves to a religion or another.

A psychopath is different, if you do some research on the subject, you'll find that psychopaths are, by definition, detached from their culture and the teachings of others, it's just part of their psychological profile as a-social beings (and by the way, most psychopaths are not criminals, just very selfish and unempathetical people, i.e., without a conscience, which does not imply a desire for murder and crime, but rather no inhibition to do so if they see a personal benefit to it, and think they're smart enough to get away with it).

Long story short, the group of people who commit atrocities because they are "psychopaths" is completely distinct from the group of people who commit atrocities because of cultural / religious justifications / indoctrination. The two profiles are simply too incompatible for there to be any significant overlap. And to a large extent, most other mental illnesses or conditions generally attributed to violent crimes, like, for example, psychotic episodes and schizophrenia, are also unrelatable to cultural influences.

That's why ignoring this group, which can be very significant in some areas of the world, is essentially burying your head in the sand. They are not psychopaths, they are not crazy. They lack the ability to critically judge their own (sub-)culture, whether that ability is being repressed by the very practices that their (sub-)culture reinforces (e.g., shunning critics, deflecting / reflecting the critiques, strictly condemning dissent, etc..), or whether the indoctrination is just too deeply rooted. And the reality is that in the vast majority of the cases, the vehicle for those rotten values / practices is a religion or a cult. Those rotten sub-cultures are generally a small part of a larger culture, and their religion is usually a particular interpretation of a more mainstream religion, and yes, religion plays a central part in those rotten sub-cultures. That's why if "a muslim farmer commits an honor killing", just saying "a muslim commits an honor killing" is a perfectly good contraction, because the "muslim" part is very relevant to the description (at least, of the perpetrator) and cannot be omitted.

I understand the frustration of all the muslims who don't feel any cultural connection with the ones that do all the "crazy" stuff: honor killings, force their women to wear a veil, do genital mutilation, issue fatwas against free-speech practioners, blow themselves up, etc... in other words, the extremists / islamists / fundamentalists / Wahhabists or whatever other term that vaguely describe one faction or another of that rotten sub-culture within Islam. If I belonged to any group in which a significant segment was doing those kinds of things, I would be very much ashamed of it, and would be very frustrated if anyone projected their judgement of them (which I imagine can only be extremely negative) onto me. All groups are judged by their most reprehensible individuals, that's just the way it is. When you associate with others, or others associate with you, you're gonna be judged together, that's just reality, whether you like it or not.

There are really only two solutions: throw the rotten eggs out of the basket, or get out of the group or branch out. In other words, dissassociation. In the case of a religious group, the first option can be challenging because people can self-proclaim as religious, there is no definitive (and Earthly) authority that can decide who is in or out, there is no definitive and unambiguous interpretation of the texts (and, very often the "moderates" are actually on the wrong side, theologically), and if you were to judge the "good" from the "bad" by relying on anything external to the religion, like human rights' charters or secular laws, most members would object. These types of things are actually central to many organized religions, i.e., the religious group's integrity is protected by its seclusion and circular logic.

And of course, getting out of a religious group can also be a big problem, let alone because of the personal dilemma of "abandoning the faith". For example, many muslims progressively disassociate with the "muslim" group (not necessarily the faith), and they often do so by no longer considering "being muslim" as a significant part of their identity (i.e., if you ask them what defines them, they'll enumerate about a dozen things before mentioning they're muslim), and that's a pretty good solution, in my opinion. A lot of scientologists have done the same, i.e., seeing their group being tainted by a number of reprehensible practices and sub-groups, and thus, they left the church in droves, and some kept the "faith" but left the group. The point is that if the larger group is not willing or able to expunge the rotten elements, the only solution is for the "good" elements to leave or disassociate themselves from it.

One thing is clear, the solution is not to put your head in the sand and act as if these people or sub-cultures didn't exist, or as if they weren't a significant / noticeable part of the group. In Islam, clearly, this is a significant problem, it is a problem for all muslims, and vaguely saying that these people are just "crazy" or not good muslims or whatever else is not a solution.

A porn video is produced and published with consent from all participants.

Most are, but some are not. Videos of actual rape and child porn are not filmed with the concent of all participants. IMO such films should fall in the same category as murder.

asif49: and what about people who have given their consent to be murdered?
believe it or not, that does happen. yup.... there are a lot of nutjobs and loony tunes out there, I know, but will it be ok if they agreed to it?

Well, if I'm laying down the law here then any video - be it porn, murder, consentual or not - showing someone committing an act that is illegal and violent in nature should not be posted in a public forum such as the Internet where anyone from adults to children can freely access it. If found should be handed in to court.

stultuske - I believe you think I'm oblivious to the world and think everything is ponies and rainbows, I'm not. I've been exposed to this type of stuff before and thought it was a rarity and there wasn't that big of an audience who gained entertainment from things like this. What sickens me more than the video being posted is that there seems to be a community which has become insensitive to all this suffering and encourage such actions/provide tips to how it could be improved. Becoming insensitive to something like this isn't a good thing - one day they may decide to go out there and do something like this themself to post to try and 'improve' on a technique that was used in another video.

It used to be that when you watched the news you saw reports of occasional deaths and injuries from things like traffic accidents and natural disasters, crime, etc. The reports were from areas, if not close to home, at least in the same country. Nowadays the media reports things like "three people dead in a bus crash in Northern China". They then justify putting it on the news by adding "no Canadians were among the casualties". Why not report every traffic death in North America? It's just as relevent (ie NOT). We are fed a constant stream of death and suffering from around the globe. And then we see higher and higher body counts on TV dramas and in the movies. The bodies on CSI are becoming more graphic and the murders on Criminal Minds more frequent and hideous. Is it any wonder we are becoming more insensitive?