Censorship?

Yeah, people need to hop on this issue; it's the only kind of media that's worse than child pornography, but nobody's on it.

Wow, I didn't even see your post! But from the looks of it, these things are legal to share; you can find tube stacks for pictures and videos of murder if you know where to look.

edited 10th Dec '11 5:18:48 PM by DisasterGrind

Yes, but people propose the idea all the time, and then there's industry shit like the Hay(e?)s Code from the movie-making sector.

@Karalora,

I like that idea.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Stuff going online is a really tricky issue, since the US government can only do stuff to servers that are located in the US, and a lot of the sites that host unfortunate content are located in countries that have more lax laws.

This covers a lot of stuff, from pirating to child porn to snuff films, and even places that are dedicated to early-release of things (say, video games) that have a different release date per country.

Catching snuff film viewing would require the government to monitor all data traffic in the US, and I'm not okay with that.

edited 10th Dec '11 10:35:30 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Re: the Murder thing: I've been all over the Internet, seen all kinds of incredibly freaky shit, all the really gross pictures, all of the downright creepy fetishes, and to this day the thing that's haunted me the most, more than any of the violent/pornographic images I've ever seen, was a low-quality video of a policeman being slowly executed over the sound, but the camera not facing it. I saw it probably five years ago and just thinking about it once has ruined countless of my days/nights.

That should not be allowed anywhere.

So yeah, I agree.

Still Sheepin'

Yeah.

A viewing of 3 Guys 1 Hammer would probsbly turn anyone off any kind of violence for a good while...

I can recall a video in which several Nepalese were tied up -innocent people, mind you- and executed by beheading and shotgun balsts to the head. No political speeches, no context, just slaughter. I simply cannot think of a reason that excuses that.

What arguments can be made to justify making the viewing of stuff like that illegal? Respect for the victims?

In the end, the people who really want to watch it, will always be able to watch it.

Murrl LustFatM

Same arguments that make child porn illegal, I'd guess. And respect for the victims as well.

edited 10th Dec '11 6:20:46 PM by DisasterGrind

No.

The only circumstances that would call for censorship concern issues of national security (primarily, this would mean material relating to war and espionage), but that's a matter of keeping information confidential in the first place, rather than censoring it.

OK, so, just out of curiosity, what do you think of the whole Grenada business? You know, when the reporters blew the lid off of the Navy's "secret" attack? Should that news report have been censored, or should there have just been tighter security?

Still Sheepin'

...American reporters gave explicit information on an American military operation—valid or not—and weren't charged and jailed/executed for treason...?

What nonsense is this?

I am now known as Flyboy.

Falls under Free Speech.

I think. Actually, I heard about this on This American Life a few months ago, and now I'm having trouble finding a source. Hold on a moment, I'll dig a little deeper

Still Sheepin'

Free speech my ass, those assholes should be in jail right now.

I am now known as Flyboy.

According to this page, it seems questionable if it really happened:

To be honest, if you look through historical reports of the invasion of Grenada, the press leaking this bit of information is pretty hard to find.

So I don't know.

Still Sheepin'

Mm... you made it sound like it was some famous case where reporters blatantly and flippantly ignored national security like jackasses. And, considering that, if I'm not mistaken, that was during Reagan's presidency and the Cold War, I'd be doubly surprised if they weren't thrown in jail—if not executed outright.

But if we don't even know if it really happened, I rather doubt it did. Usually such things are well-known.

Edit: Wait, the source makes it sound like it did happen, but that it was obscure and ultimately unimportant. However, reading the Wikipedia page, it seems like the operation was successful overall, and it doesn't even mention a press leak. Hm.

Though the way they make it sound, it would have been less "hey, let's say things that can hurt the US Military to be dickwads!" and more "hey, let's talk about this because it's a slow news day. ~next day~ Oh shit that might actually have been bad to release."

edited 10th Dec '11 8:40:51 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Yeah, I guess that's what you get for trusting Reagan supporters. *

I guess it's kind of hard to tell if it was that big of a deal. According to the Reagan museum featured on the This American Life episode, the Grenadians were prepared for the invasion, which led to the deaths of seven American soldiers. (Though to be fair, it was, you know, an invasion. It's kind of an occupational hazard.)

*

EDIT: Anyway, let's talk about a hypothetical situation. Let's say the Funited States of Pamerica were to invade a little island called Branada. Let's also say some reporters leaked an ostensibly "secret" mission, and if it were to be released, a direct result would be the failure of the invasion. Should that be censored by the government, if they were given the opportunity?

edited 10th Dec '11 8:55:25 PM by TheEarthSheep

Still Sheepin'

Well, I'm sure they were ready; anti-American governments in Latin America during the Cold War probably always were, and the Wikipedia article mentions advisers they had there from Cuba and the Soviet Union.

Though, if the total death toll was only 19 for a not-insignificant wholesale invasion of a nation, I'm inclined to say they're just playing Moral Myopia with the whole "it's worse because they're American!" aspect...

Edit: Yes. The reporters should likely also face reprisal.

Though I'd be much more lenient if they released it after the operation had closed. It's starkly different to release things after their really relevant than before, though it's still not very good.

edited 10th Dec '11 8:58:26 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Yes. It should be. Unless the invasion was of dubious intent, then I see no qualms with that.

Well, what if you support the Branadan government? It's your constitutional right to disagree with the government, and if you're a Lommunist like the Branadans, you might actually want the Branadans to invade and make everyone a filthy Lommie. Can the government decide that your opinion isn't legal, that you can be silenced?

Still Sheepin'

It is certainly socially irresponsible to spread sensitive information that has been leaked, but the fact that it's been leaked at all indicates either incompetence or treachery. Those are problems that can and should be dealt with internally by institutions (and, for that matter, private entities). If you have secrets, the burden is on you to keep them, basically.

I can't find reliable details on the "Grenada business", but from the basic look of things *

, we might at least treat it as a hypothetical, and then, yeah, those reporters would be dicks. But once the information's out, nothing will be achieved by punishing those who have merely spread it (rather than putting it out in the first place), regardless of whether they've been dicks or not. The prudent solution consists of two main steps. The first action should, of course, be to conduct an investigation in order to prevent any more details getting out - whoever is failing to keep confidential information confidential is either an idiot or a bad guy, and they are the root of the problem. Next, of course, would be to change the plan, because, frankly, unless you're running some kind of Xanatos Gambit (protip: not in reality, you're not (usually)), sticking to a plan that you know the enemy knows about would be a prime example of Too Dumb to Live. These are a must, whatever you do about those in the media. Censorship after-the-fact seems kind of pointless, but in a case where reporters are going out of their way to, for instance, bribe people for information, or were obtaining it through illegal means, then they may well be considered accountable. However, the fundamental issue is that the information was made available to outsiders, and the two steps I mentioned above come long before censorship considerations.

Re: Branada and the FSP: Reporters don't have access to information like that right off the bat. The first thing to consider is how they got it. Once it's out, censorship is going to be difficult, anyway.

edited 10th Dec '11 9:19:10 PM by ekuseruekuseru

No. Your opinion is your own.

If you decide to try and help them do it, you should be executed, though. Such is the difference between a thought and an action.

I am now known as Flyboy.

In this hypothetical situation, the government would be able to prevent the press from publishing the story. It's a thought experiment, we can screw with details like that.

But where is the line drawn? I assume you could publish your Lommunist propaganda? Could you give strategic defensive advice to the Branadan leadership? Could you publish claims that the Funited States of Pamerica should be invaded, and possible plans for a successful invasion, maybe detailing some strategic weaknesses?

Still Sheepin'

• Propaganda: Yes.
• "Strategic Defensive Advice": Define this, please.
• Claims that the... FSP... should be invaded: Yes.
• Possible invasion plans/strategic weaknesses: No.

I am now known as Flyboy.

"Hey, that West Coast of yours looks pretty weak. Maybe you should send a battalion of Kinfantry over there. Maybe some Janks."

Note: This is without knowing whether the FSP is planning to invade the West Coast of Branada.

... Some Taeroplanes.

A Raircraft Warrier!

Oh God, this is way too entertaining.

edited 10th Dec '11 9:29:41 PM by TheEarthSheep

Still Sheepin'

I'm inclined to say no to "strategic defensive advice," then.

I am now known as Flyboy.

In the situation where they can stop it from being published, they should still change the plan and deal with whatever security problem exists. At that stage, whether it's published or not is irrelevant.