You already declared that all banning is futile and that all attempts to ban something automatically result in government abuse of said bans (yes, the government sucking sucks in Burgerland, but it's still a presumptive worldwide claim to make), so it's not like there'd be much to distinguish killed-to-entertain-hogs from killed-for-other-reasons-but-hogs-get-entertained.
By banning I mean hunt down the murderers who profit from their killings and shut down the site permanently. I do not agree that all government regulation is futile, for instance, the manufacture of nuclear weapons should be banned wholesale by any government (unless the BETA invade or something).
Furthermore, in my view, a video which coincidentally captures a violent death is a sincere snapshot of reality at the time and it in itself is neither good nor bad. However, I do acknowledge that there are sick fucks (e.g. les francais) who use free speech as an excuse to get a rise out of mocking and belittling the victims of a tragedy through such videos. The issue I see with banning the videos themselves is that the bullies will remain bullies and move on to something else. After all they are the products of a capitalist society where human life and death is cheap.
Rather I think it would be better to ban the behaviour, as in allow the archival of gore away from sites where people can be accidentally traumatized by stumbling upon it, presented with sobriety without a comment section. The best strategy would be to build a world such that human life is treasured and everyone is taken care of, reducing levels of sick fuckery.
The best strategy would be to build a world such that human life is treasured and everyone is taken care of, reducing levels of sick fuckery.
This one part is in steep contrast to the reductionist description provided for dead people earlier in this comment chain. I prefer this side of the contrast, so works for me.
You already declared that all banning is futile and that all attempts to ban something automatically result in government abuse of said bans (yes, the government sucking sucks in Burgerland, but it's still a presumptive worldwide claim to make), so it's not like there'd be much to distinguish killed-to-entertain-hogs from killed-for-other-reasons-but-hogs-get-entertained.
By banning I mean hunt down the murderers who profit from their killings and shut down the site permanently. I do not agree that all government regulation is futile, for instance, the manufacture of nuclear weapons should be banned wholesale by any government (unless the BETA invade or something).
Furthermore, in my view, a video which coincidentally captures a violent death is a sincere snapshot of reality at the time and it in itself is neither good nor bad. However, I do acknowledge that there are sick fucks (e.g. les francais) who use free speech as an excuse to get a rise out of mocking and belittling the victims of a tragedy through such videos. The issue I see with banning the videos themselves is that the bullies will remain bullies and move on to something else. After all they are the products of a capitalist society where human life and death is cheap.
Rather I think it would be better to ban the behaviour, as in allow the archival of gore away from sites where people can be accidentally traumatized by stumbling upon it, presented with sobriety without a comment section. The best strategy would be to build a world such that human life is treasured and everyone is taken care of, reducing levels of sick fuckery.
This one part is in steep contrast to the
reductionist description provided for dead people earlier in this comment chain. I prefer this side of the contrast, so works for me.