08 Oct 04
Websites such as ogrish.com that broadcast live real executions
of innocent people and the like, should they be put in the same
category as for instance child porn and banned form the net?
Videos of men paraded in front of the camera giving final speeches
with masked soldiers in the background and then decapitation scenes in, with warriors chanting Allah Akhbar, holding the head aloft is
perhaps too brutal and strong for most of the population.
11 Oct 04
Originally posted by obliterationI think you have to have a pretty strong stomach to look at the average content of Ogrish, be it executions or deforemd babies. From what I've seen, it shouldn't be banned, but should carry a big fat warning of 'offensive material - not suitable for kids.'
Websites such as ogrish.com that broadcast live real executions
of innocent people and the like, should they be put in the same
category as for instance child porn and banned form the net?
Videos of men paraded in front of the camera giving final speeches
with masked soldiers in the background and then decapitation scenes in, with warriors chanting ...[text shortened]... lah Akhbar, holding the head aloft is
perhaps too brutal and strong for most of the population.
11 Oct 04
Originally posted by Acolyte
I think you have to have a pretty strong stomach to look at the average content of Ogrish, be it executions or deforemd babies. From what I've seen, it shouldn't be banned, but should carry a big fat warning of 'offensive material - not suitable for kids.'
The film is made illegally, so basically should be illegal material like child porn and filming of rape. I don't believe they should be shown by anyone.
11 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeI still don't agree that it should be shown. It is like putting up a child porn video on a website and saying, "This should be shown because it shows how sick and twisted some people are." Any material that is made illegally should not be legal and destroyed.
No, this web site is of crucial importance.
It allows people to witness the brutality and thugishness of religious fanatics.
Hopefully the world can unite in condemnation of disgraceful acts like these and the perpetrators will be brought to justice (i.e life imprisonment).
We know they are brutal, sick and twisted and know what they did. Showing it is definately not necessary.
11 Oct 04
Originally posted by lauseyYeah, but you don't have to look at it. 😕
I still don't agree that it should be shown. It is like putting up a child porn video on a website and saying, "This should be shown because it shows how sick and twisted some people are." Any material that is made illegally should not be legal and destroyed.
We know they are brutal, sick and twisted and know what they did. Showing it is definately not necessary.
11 Oct 04
2 edits
Originally posted by Remora91Equally, you don't have to look at any other illegal content, but does that give people the right to distribute it?
Yeah, but you don't have to look at it. 😕
I am not against porn, if they are created by people who are over 18 and everyone involved consented. I am talking about the illegal stuff. 😛
11 Oct 04
Originally posted by howardgeeI can't believe it!..I actually agree with you...well said...🙂
No, this web site is of crucial importance.
It allows people to witness the brutality and thugishness of religious fanatics.
Hopefully the world can unite in condemnation of disgraceful acts like these and the perpetrators will be brought to justice (i.e life imprisonment).
12 Oct 04
Child porn is usually distributed for profit. Thus to own child pornography is seen to drive the demand for production. Therefore in the eyes of the law, owners of such images are an accessory to the crime.
In the case of beheadings by fanatics, their motivation is not profit. They would comit these unspeakable acts with or without distribution of the evidence.
12 Oct 04
Originally posted by howardgee
Child porn is usually distributed for profit. Thus to own child pornography is seen to drive the demand for production. Therefore in the eyes of the law, owners of such images are an accessory to the crime.
In the case of beheadings by fanatics, their motivation is not profit. They would comit these unspeakable acts with or without distribution of the evidence.
Actually, good point, hmmm.....time for a rethink. 😀
As a side note, I am not a squimish person, I was seeing it on a moralistic point of view. Politically I think I am swaying otherwise now. 😛
12 Oct 04
Originally posted by gumbie
lausey you have made a very good point. Don't give up.
What if the terrorists kidnapped raped sodomized and murdered children on video.
Should that be shown or not?
You are right, they should not be shown. As I realised when I made my follow-up post after thinking about it.
People might argue that the law isn't necessarily right, but laws are put in place for good reasons. Whether a law is correct or not is a matter of another debate.