How to get website banned from country due to sick content? - Page 2

Is it any wonder we are becoming more insensitive?

Not to mention all those violent games! I love Diablo, but in that game we just slauter monsters and grab treasure. When a monster is killed it just simply disappears with little or no blood and guts visible. Many other violent games the player kills humans, and kids enjoy doing that! Not long ago in St Louis, MO where I live near one kid killed another kid imitating what he played in a game. I know that's rare -- at least for now. What are those kids going to be like when they grow up?

stultuske - I believe you think I'm oblivious to the world

to the world ... no. to the internet and the primal instincts and nature of mankind perhaps.

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

that means that over 99% of all movies in existence are hereby banned by you? each news report may only mention football scores?
fact of life is, you 'll never be able to 'shut them out', they 'll always find a new server to upload their stuff, and whether you like it or not, they 'll always attract a certain type of users for the material they offer.

Ancient_Dragon: unfortunately, kids replaying things they know is as old as the street. in medieval (and earlier) days, they played what they heard from travelling story tellers, and lore, where they would 'slay' the dragon. nowadays, they still act out the stories, just the way the stories are brought to them are different.

there 'll always be a number of kids doing stuff like this, but that's not the games they play, it's their own nature and decision. whether they replay a game or a movie, the source is not as relevant as the result, yet any other day there'll be another politician to blaim it all on the videogames. the amount of children acting out like this is a very small percentage, and do not represent 'children playing violent games'.

personally, I would prefer a child to act on his more primal instincts and frustrations in a virtual world, then in the real world.

I meant real videos of those acts being committed - not fictional movie versions.

On the horns of a dilemna orjust muddying water where there is no doubt as to the action that must be taken. The arguments for and against involvement/action both have compelling aspects. The first for me is the preservation of free speech, something that allows us to discuss this issue without fear of retribution. I don't want to be party to any action that chips away at that right, although this means I have to tolerate actions outside my comfort zone. On the other hand can we in the name of freedom of expression subscribe to actions that are illegal under international law. Like balancing on a knife edge either action or inaction is fraught with difficulties. Then you add the variables, are these real murders or rapes, if they are real are we ever going to stop that group disseminating these images on line, given they are based in societies and organisations that don't abide by the rule of law. The strength of our current system is that no one can stop the truth getting out, large multi nationals and more so governments contrlled by them or by ideaology want us to tighten the noose around the neck of of these groups because it allows them to enact laws that that also restrict our ability to challenge and expose actions which range from self serving to evil.
Though I hate to say it, because the actions as described are sick, I fall on the side of actions that reduce the opportunity for these things to happen in our societies, and strenthening those societies through the spread of knowledge. Why? Because we are not playing on a level playing field, a court order may shut down law abiding people, while at best it provides on;y a speed bump to the lawless and idealogically arrogant.

The first for me is the preservation of free speech

That is not available in all countries -- some countries don't have such a thing. So you can't preserve something that doesn't exist.

There is no such thing as "freedome of speech" on forums. In USA it only applies to governments -- forums such as DaniWeb are not bound by "free speech" ethics, and indeed they often do censor stuff we post.

And????

What are those kids going to be like when they grow up?

I tried to go out my way to avoid making any type of causal link. Thank you for pointing out the violence in video games. I neglected that one. To make a claim that violence in the media (including video games) causes more violence is ingenuous. That claim is not supported by actual data. Violence (at least in North America) is on the decline and has been for a couple of decades. If violence in the media incited further violence you would expect to see an increase. Recent studies have shown a very strong correlation between lead (most commonly as an additive in gasoline) and violence. For example, a study in Cincinnati finds that young people prosecuted for delinquency are four times more likely than the general population to have high levels of lead (a potent neuro-toxin) in their bones. A meta-analysis (a study of studies) of 19 papers found no evidence that other factors could explain the correlation between exposure to lead and conduct problems in young people. Other studies have shown that in city after city, violent crime peaked in the early '90s and then began a steady and spectacular decline. Lead emissions from tailpipes rose steadily from the early '40s through the early '70s. Eventually leaded gasoline was banned. Twenty years later crime rates started to decline. In a 2000 paper, Rick Nevin concluded that "if you add a lag time of 23 years, lead emissions from automobiles explain 90 percent of the variation in violent crime in America. Toddlers who ingested high levels of lead in the '40s and '50s really were more likely to become violent criminals in the '60s, '70s, and '80s." A new study in 2007 showed the same trend for Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Finland, Italy, France, New Zealand and West Germany.

Maybe -- studies have also shown that there is a direct correlation between the rising of the moon and pregnancy. Conclusion: lets destroy the moon because it causes pregnancy. This chart, from here, shows very little change over the last 50 years.

Reverend Jim -

I'm not going for the "ban violent games and media because it's destroying our kids" because that is untrue. If taught properly by their parents most kids don't imitate what they see in fictional works - key words here are 'most' and 'fictional'. Kids when they grow up, even if they do see actual acts such as the ones mentioned being committed don't want to go and act them out because our society rightfully tells us they are wrong.

What this means is that the problem isn't for the sane members of our society. The problem is the already psychologically disturbed members which are in the minority and believe acts like those are something their sick mind has thought up so repress the desires to go out and commit these acts because society openly condemns it. Now imagine those very small minority of people gain access to websites where people that commit those acts, instead of being condemned, are put on a pedestal. You can see what happens next.

AD - To my eye it looks like violent crimes plateaued in the 80s and 90s and has been declining since then which is pretty much what the study was saying. Page 5 of this paper shows the correlation by country.

I meant real videos of those acts being committed - not fictional movie versions.

and who is going to say what is real and what is fictional?
taken into account that there are people who actually volunteer to die in such way ... so then it's with consent, and you also said you have no problem with consentual made video's.

do we check the news? if it's real, it may not be shown, so never again we'll see an image of people being shot to death in a war, because that would be "too realistic".
but lately, pictures have shown that "victims" that are smeared through magazines and news bulletins are not hurt at all. in some cases (and I'm not going to say it's the majority, just that it does happen) the "victims" just staged the images. they fake reality, so the world sees the "truth" about their situation, the way they imagine it should be, which, of course, doesn't really reflect reality, since after the pictures are taken, they just pick up their stuff and (bloody corps or not) simply walk home (and yes, there have been pictures of this too).

In the end, you say you got to that site by following posts your friends made there. so, not only does that site find people who wants to see that sort of video's, but some of them turn out to be your friends. maybe time to question whether you really want them as friends, if you really are this opposed to what they do.

I'm all for freedom of speech, expression, etc.. However, there are things that cross this line.

And someone else draws the line at you saying something he doesn't like, say he doesn't like you saying that he's a corrupt, power mad, fraudster who's attempting to turn the country you live in into a dictatorship.
Are you still for having someone say what you're allowed to say and what not?

One has to be careful ascribing causation to correlations. Similar to lead there is a strong correlation between legalization of abortion and crime but due to confounders (wealth, urbanization, reporting probability, definitions of crimes, etc..) it is hard to be conclusive about anything. Mostly we can only say what is unlikely to be causally linked to crime and violence in the media is definitely in that category.

Are you still for having someone say what you're allowed to say and what not?

Many factors control what people can and cannot say according to social norms. These can be institutionalized (laws) or mob-based (public shaming and ostresization) and can involve physical, economic, or social/reputation penalties. There is not and has never been such a thing as free-speech there is just changes in social norms over what is and is not acceptable and enforcement methods.

One has to be careful ascribing causation to correlations

So true.

Anyway, some sites may be offensive, but should they be taken down? I think that depends. There are some sites that I find offensive, like 'religious sites', which, in my opinion do more to twist minds and breed animosity than anything else, but I'm sure the majority of 'believers' would disagree. And - strange as it may seem - I would defend their right to disagree. However, what if we delve a little deeper? Would a site encouraging visitors to join their organisation in order to wage a crusade against the Muslims and Jews in the 'occupied Holy Land' be as acceptable? Are we now still in the lands of opinion or straying into something more fundamental (pardon the pun). Do we now view this site as dangerous, against the public interest, to be banned, for their owners to be prosecuted or simply to be tolerated?

There are a number of clerics in the UK who have been held on charges pertaining to 'incitement to violence'. If I were to shout the words of this fictitious site like some manic street preacher, could I expect to be arrested? Should I? If I hand out leaflets with this material, should they be taken from me and destroyed?

Mein Kampf is widely available for sale, including on Amazon. This may shock some, but comes as no surprise to others - many of whom would shrug and say, 'so what?'.

We can't decide what to accept, what to ban. We're afraid of making some decisions as they may upset or offend (Dog forbid!) certain sections of the community. Laws have been bent to breaking point in our attempt to do nothing, while providing strong rhetoric in our parliaments and election run-ups.

It is much easier to order a take-down due to copyright infringement rather than to provide some other subjective ruling. It seems that you can be prosecuted for calling somebody a bad name on Twitter or Facebook, but load up some filth and make some disgusting comment on an equally vile forum, and you're fine. Doesn't quite add up, does it?

Humans, eh? However smart we get, we'll never shake off the stink of depravity.

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.

There's videos where rape is played by actors, ditto with children (typically "teens" played by nominal adults, usually Asians because of their typically smaller stature).

Same really as similar things in non-R rated productions.
Remember the furor when "the blue lagoon" was released? Adult actors were made to look like teens by careful positioning of props to make them look smaller, and by specific applications of camera angle, makeup, hairstyle (for some scenes children were used, but only those that weren't "steamy").

Art? No. But the adult entertainment industry are experts at catering to as many kinks and fetishes as they can without breaking the law. There's good money in it after all.

stultske

In the end, you say you got to that site by following posts your friends made there. so, not only does that site find people who wants to see that sort of video's, but some of them turn out to be your friends. maybe time to question whether you really want them as friends, if you really are this opposed to what they do.

I just had to reply to this. My friends posted on a facebook uploaded version of a video which lead me there. But do note that posting on something does not mean you agree or condone it. They posted comments with the same disgust that I created this thread with.

Maybe you have the wrong friends??