Anyone with YouTube account! Important!

[Bell]

Can anyone with a YouTube account PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE report the following video as inappropriate? :mad::mad::mad:

I don't have an account, so can't do it myself.

The video is made by some MOFU who thought it funny to put the song "it's raining men" over video of people falling out of the WTC. :mad::mad::mad:

Don't watch the video if that's not your kind of humor.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8841438976086246224

[scissorhands]

Ive reported it.
Sick teenagers are always posting **** like this.

[quixotecoyote]

You know, I thought I might get a sick laugh out of that, but it is stomach turning.

[Bell]

Thanks man!

[Wartrac]

I'll buy a coffee for the first person that can pick out my comment.:mad:

[scissorhands]

scrunt07 by any chance?
No need for a coffee, did you report it?
I dont know how youtube works but I imagine they take notice to lots of complaints.

[Bell]

scrunt07 by any chance?
No need for a coffee, did you report it?
I dont know how youtube works but I imagine they take notice to lots of complaints.

I guess so. So if everyone with an account will report this, so much the better.

[Bell]

The MOFU's MySpace page:
http://www.myspace.com/youmustnotmiss

7 sep 2007

making the 9/11 raining men video

i will say even when i began making this video i was offended but after repeated viewings of my video i began to laugh and laugh and laugh. in order to get through tragedies with magnitudes such as 9/11 we need to look back and laugh at it crying about year after year isn't going to bring those people back. people have asked me would you like it if someone added music in the background while you fall to your death. well i dont think ill care since ill be you know DEAD! if there is a heaven or a hell why the **** would you care at all your in the *********** AFTERLIFE you've got bigger problems and if there isn't an afterlife well your not going to care at all.

He has NO IDEA what he is talking about.

[scissorhands]

I wonder if he would appreciate someone taking a video of his mothers or fathers violent death and putting some funky music to it then posting it all over the net?
:mad:

Bet he wouldnt be laughing so much then.

[buka001]

This kid needs a beating. A sever one. More than juts an attitude adjusting clap.

[Wartrac]

Yes I am the Scruntster......lol.

I am fighting the urge to ramble on about this cause what I want to say doesn't belong in this forum.

Let's just say as a parent I disgusted with a lot of other parents in this country. A lot of times I don't blame the kids because parents should be teaching them conseqence, humility and understanding there is more out there than their perceived little universe.

If one of my sons did that, regardless is he was 14 or 40, he would have a very small issue. As a comedian I once saw once said...........I can't make you not do that, but I CAN make you wish you didn't.

But alas we live in the " kids get time outs" generation.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This kid needs a beating. A sever one. More than juts an attitude adjusting clap.

Time to get out the snow shovel.

ETA: I clicked on "Flag as inappropriate" and selected "Other Terms of Use violation". Neither graphic violence nor hate speech seemed to fit right.

[scissorhands]

Theyve flagged it so you need to have an account confirming birthdate as over 18.
Obviously thats not good enough so I have reported it again as "other terms of use violation" instead of "graphic violence".
Clearly they dont actually look at the video if you dont specify this?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040319h.jpg
NSFW: foul language, no nudity or violence (used spoiler tags cuz nsfw didn't work).

Fixed NSFW tags.
Advisory note to all: The tag has the format "NSFW=<label>" "/NSFW" You need to add the label, or it won't work.

[Oliver]

Can anyone with a YouTube account PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE report the following video as inappropriate? :mad::mad::mad:

I don't have an account, so can't do it myself.

The video is made by some MOFU who thought it funny to put the song "it's raining men" over video of people falling out of the WTC. :mad::mad::mad:

Don't watch the video if that's not your kind of humor.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8841438976086246224


I have an account at YouTube - but quite frankly, Bell - I didn't
report it since I believe in "freedom of expression" - no matter
how ugly the consequences are... :(

[Bell]

I have an account at YouTube - but quite frankly, Bell - I didn't
report it since I believe in "freedom of expression" - no matter
how ugly the consequences are... :(

Not to derail this thread in a discussion about "freedom of expression" but there are limits to how people should express themselfs. In this particulair case it has to do with respect for the victims and their relatives.

The MOFU who made the video, was not expressing himself, he is pissing on the graves of the people who fell to their death only for his own amusement.

[Oliver]

Not to derail this thread in a discussion about "freedom of expression" but there are limits to how people should express themselfs. In this particulair case it has to do with respect for the victims and their relatives.

The MOFU who made the video, was not expressing himself, he is pissing on the graves of the people who fell to their death only for his own amusement.


Well, but this is the downside of Freedom of expression/speech.
My point was - either you believe in these freedoms - or you try
to censor them, contradicting your believes concerning these
freedoms...

[Bell]

Not to derail this thread in a discussion about "freedom of expression"

Well, but this is the downside of Freedom of expression/speech.
My point was - either you believe in these freedoms - or you try
to censor them, contradicting your believes concerning these
freedoms...

<--- Discussion about freedom of speech/expression thattaway.

[Oliver]

<--- Discussion about freedom of speech/expression thattaway.


Where is "Thattaway"? PM? But I guess you know what I mean - so
I don't want to derail this thread either... :boxedin:

[scissorhands]

I think youtube would beg to differ.
They regularly remove offensive videos of all kinds.
He could always host it on his own site and see how things work out.

[Civilized Worm]

What's all the fuss about? Did someone make an image of the prophet? Burn the infidels!

[Bell]

What's all the fuss about? Did someone make an image of the prophet? Burn the infidels!

:confused:

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I got into a fight with a friend once that sent me a link to WTC coverage sped up with the benny hill theme song. I decked him in the face when I saw him and told him it wasn't funny, and he laughed at me. It was 2002 or something i think.

We haven't talked since... and I don't regret it.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

What's all the fuss about? Did someone make an image of the prophet? Burn the infidels!

Well, it's one thing to make fun of people getting their panties in a bunch about a portrait of a prophet from 1400 years ago... And another to get pissed off at someone disrespecting people who died 6 years ago and their families are still around.

[Par]

While the poster of the video in question is, in my opinion, obviously an unpleasant little scumbag and video itself sick and extremely offensive, I’ve got to say I won’t be reporting it. Technicalities such as Google’s terms of service aside (I’m not familiar with them), the way I see it, this qualifies as a borderline taste issue. That said:

I have an account at YouTube - but quite frankly, Bell - I didn't report it since I believe in "freedom of expression" - no matter
how ugly the consequences are.


This is not simply a free-expression issue. This fellow indeed has the right to create this clip and so forth, but he does not have a right for Google to provide the vehicle for its distribution. Common mistake.

[Par]

Well, it's one thing to make fun of people getting their panties in a bunch about an invisible pedoprophet from 1400 years ago... And another to get pissed off at someone disrespecting people who died 6 years ago and their families are still around.


At the risk of sounding glib, all the above really seems to say is: “Censor the things that I find offensive, but not the things that other people find offensive.”

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

At the risk of sounding glib, all the above really seems to say is: “Censor the things that I find offensive, but not the things that other people find offensive.”

Nah... It takes 22.3 years before a tragedy can be joked about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Has_Aides).

[Totovader]

At the risk of sounding glib, all the above really seems to say is: “Censor the things that I find offensive, but not the things that other people find offensive.”

Par - as you already pointed out, it's not censorship.

[Par]

Par - as you already pointed out, it's not censorship.


I knew I shouldn't have removed the following from the end of my last post: "In any event, it’s somewhat academic given it’s not a free-expression issue." I was simply referring to a hypothetical comparison with the Mohammed cartoons, etc.

[fuelair]

Well, but this is the downside of Freedom of expression/speech.
My point was - either you believe in these freedoms - or you try
to censor them, contradicting your believes concerning these
freedoms...
Actually you.....permanantly adjust .....the person doing them. Which, if one of the victims had been friend or family, I would happily do.

[Wartrac]

I have an account at YouTube - but quite frankly, Bell - I didn't
report it since I believe in "freedom of expression" - no matter
how ugly the consequences are... :(

Ok.....and I agree with you to an extent. Let's forget the rediculous poor taste and the fact this moron should be flogged. If it's an event that someone could sue someone for mental anguish etc would it still be cover under the 1st amendment?

Freedom of speech only covers you if you are not causing harm to others. And IMO this crosses that line.

Frankly I would give up my freedom and take the 3 hots and a cot to show this person why it's in very poor taste.

[Sabrina]

I tried clicking on the link; it says it's been flagged as inappropriate per YouTube's user community, so apparently it worked, but they haven't removed it, just made it difficult to access.

I should point out I don't have a YouTube account and have no intention of getting one.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I have an account at YouTube - but quite frankly, Bell - I didn't
report it since I believe in "freedom of expression" - no matter
how ugly the consequences are... :(

Freedom of expression gives you the right to condemn something... no matter how ugly the consequences are. It's a 2 way street you know.

Freedom of speech/expression also does not guarantee the right to an audience.

[Spins]

I must admit if one of the people that fell or jumped from the Twin Towers was a relative of mine I'm sure I wouldn't be happy about it being posted on You Tube for comedy value. Why stop there though, what about the sickening Iraqi hostage decapitations with music for everyone to laugh at, I'm sure some ultra left wing nut will complain about freedom of speech/expression when they are removed.

[Par]

Ok.....and I agree with you to an extent. Let's forget the rediculous poor taste and the fact this moron should be flogged. If it's an event that someone could sue someone for mental anguish etc would it still be cover under the 1st amendment?Freedom of speech only covers you if you are not causing harm to others. And IMO this crosses that line. Frankly I would give up my freedom and take the 3 hots and a cot to show this person why it's in very poor taste.


Well, I’m sure that the “manipulate the legal system and if that doesn’t work, take matters into your own hands” sentiment mirrors fairly precisely what the mad Imams and their acolytes were saying about the Motoons. In any event, see above, in this case it’s not a free-speech issue.

[Bell]

I'm not against making jokes about 9/11, there are some funny ones around (most likely not by troofers, since they lack a sense of humor), just take a look at these boards. I'm sure there even are one or two jokes on behalve of the victims I could laugh about. Thing being, it is about context. What are you trying to achieve?

Showing videos of people falling to their deaths whilst playing "it's raining man" can achieve nothing more than being offensive.

[Bell]

I must admit if one of the people that fell or jumped from the Twin Towers was a relative of mine I'm sure I wouldn't be happy about it being posted on You Tube for comedy value. Why stop there though, what about the sickening Iraqi hostage decapitations with music for everyone to laugh at, I'm sure some ultra left wing nut will complain about freedom of speech/expression when they are removed.

Even without the music, I don't understand why such videos should be on YouTube for the whole world to see? What is the entertainment value of seeing someone getting killed?

[Spins]

Even without the music, I don't understand why such videos should be on YouTube for the whole world to see? What is the entertainment value of seeing someone getting killed?
There is none and I've always found material of this nature distasteful to say the least. I actually know a few people who have, on rare occasions, a morbid fascination for some of this stuff, but it's not for me I'm afraid and I just tell them I'm not interested whilst explaining imagine if that was a loved one of yours. In fact I remember the Nick Berg killing in Iraq, apparently the parents already knew about the circumstances of his death but a few days later when members of the media started to turn up at their doorstep telling them that the video had been posted on the Internet they were devastated, it's not entertainment. That's my 10p worth anyways.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I admit I had to chuckle. I didn't laugh because of the subject matter, I laughed at peoples reactions to it.

Unpopular speech needs the most protection and this has got to be one of the most unpopular things I've ever seen. I think flagging it as inappropriate as a warning to people who will be easily offended is fine. I would never support banning it.

LLH

[tkingdoll]

Even without the music, I don't understand why such videos should be on YouTube for the whole world to see? What is the entertainment value of seeing someone getting killed?

It's precisely because these sites are for the whole world, and not just the USA, that's why. Yes, it's extremely distasteful by your standards. But people in other countries may find it hilarious. Offense and respect are incredibly subjective, locally as well as internationally. And nearly 100% of the population of the world is not related to a victim of 9/11.

The comparison with the Muhammed cartoons is extremely apt. Many people think it's laughable that a set of people can be so offended by something, they would call for the death penalty for those causing the offense. But look at the violent wishes expressed in this thread. There is no difference. Many Muslims have as much respect for Muhammed as you do for the victims of 9/11. If you can find their hysteria strange, perhaps others can find yours strange.

Either way, I think people should be careful with subjective terms like 'respect' and 'offense', particularly when it comes to a global audience.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Wow its been banned already!

[Par]

Even without the music, I don't understand why such videos should be on YouTube for the whole world to see? What is the entertainment value of seeing someone getting killed?


This more focuses on the “for the world to see” than the “YouTube” part of your post: If you’re simply referring to the unedited footage, then you’ve poisoned the well. Your question implies that it is about “entertainment” which in turn would appear to suggest a tawdry and sleazy titillation. However, one might read about the Holocaust, or watch footage of emaciated concentration camp inmates, but it would be unusual to suggest that this is simply for “entertainment value”. I hope I don’t sound rude here, but to be frank I don’t think it’s any of your business what people choose to watch or why. You seem to be setting up something of a false dichotomy: Either you’re a sicko who gets off on watching death, or you would have no problem with this sort of material being purged.

[Spins]

Wow its been banned already!
It doesn't surprise me because there have been videos of the people falling from the towers in the past that were removed.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Graphic Violence is one of the options to complain about.

[Bell]

It's precisely because these sites are for the whole world, and not just the USA, that's why. Yes, it's extremely distasteful by your standards. But people in other countries may find it hilarious. Offense and respect are incredibly subjective, locally as well as internationally. And nearly 100% of the population of the world is not related to a victim of 9/11.

The comparison with the Muhammed cartoons is extremely apt. Many people think it's laughable that a set of people can be so offended by something, they would call for the death penalty for those causing the offense. But look at the violent wishes expressed in this thread. There is no difference. Many Muslims have as much respect for Muhammed as you do for the victims of 9/11. If you can find their hysteria strange, perhaps others can find yours strange.

Either way, I think people should be careful with subjective terms like 'respect' and 'offense', particularly when it comes to a global audience.

In my quote I was actually refering the beheading videos Spins spoke of. Showing videos of people dying has no entertainment value - okay, for me that is atleast - no matter if the victim is Dutch, American, Iraqi, Sadam Hussein or a member of Al Qaeda.

Neither do I see any value in portraying Mohammed as a dog unless the goal is to piss off a lot of Muslims. And I don't see any value in that either.

But I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.

[Bell]

This more focuses on the “for the world to see” than the “YouTube” part of your post: If you’re simply referring to the unedited footage, then you’ve poisoned the well. Your question implies that it is about “entertainment” which in turn would appear to suggest a tawdry and sleazy titillation. However, one might read about the Holocaust, or watch footage of emaciated concentration camp inmates, but it would be unusual to suggest that this is simply for “entertainment value”. I hope I don’t sound rude here, but to be frank I don’t think it’s any of your business what people choose to watch or why. You seem to be setting up something of a false dichotomy: Either you’re a sicko who gets off on watching death, or you would have no problem with this sort of material being purged.

Yes, it's my view on this and I agree it is very black/white. Since I don't see anything to gain from watching such videos, I decided nobody has anything to gain. Which obvious isn't very good form, but sometimes I have a very strong stand on subjects. Heh, blame me ;)

[tkingdoll]

To be absolutely fair, if it is YouTube's policy to not allow ANY footage of this type, then they did the right thing in removing it. They have a 'no violence' policy so it may be that no 9/11 footage is allowed on there.

But if this video is allowed on YouTube without the comedy soundtrack, then I have a big issue with that. I would also have an issue with this video being reported, but not other videos showing the same thing without the music. I would call that 'inconsistent' behaviour on behalf of the reporters.

[Kryptos]

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

Didn't see it but, they removed it quickly.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

But if this video is allowed on YouTube without the comedy soundtrack, then I have a big issue with that. I would also have an issue with this video being reported, but not other videos showing the same thing without the music. I would call that 'inconsistent'.

There are many videos on YouTube with the same footage (different sound track of course). Many of them have been up for more than a year.

Also I found 2 "computer generated" videos of jumpers from the towers to the same soundtrack ("It's raining men"). Basically its video game characters jumping off the WTC. These videos have been up for over a month.

It seems the soundtrack is the issue.

LLH

[tkingdoll]

There are many videos on YouTube with the same footage (different sound track of course). Many of them have been up for more than a year.

Also I found 2 "computer generated" videos of jumpers from the towers to the same soundtrack ("It's raining men"). Basically its video game characters jumping off the WTC. These videos have been up for over a month.

It seems the soundtrack is the issue.

LLH

It may be that the other videos haven't been reported. Anyone willing to report them for graphic violence and see if they get taken down?

I mean, a soundtrack isn't graphic violence. If that's the grounds on which YouTube removed the vid in the OP, then they should remove the others. Ditto copyright.

[Bell]

To be absolutely fair, if it is YouTube's policy to not allow ANY footage of this type, then they did the right thing in removing it. They have a 'no violence' policy so it may be that no 9/11 footage is allowed on there.

But if this video is allowed on YouTube without the comedy soundtrack, then I have a big issue with that. I would also have an issue with this video being reported, but not other videos showing the same thing without the music. I would call that 'inconsistent' behaviour on behalf of the reporters.

There are many videos on YouTube with the same footage (different sound track of course). Many of them have been up for more than a year.

Also I found 2 "computer generated" videos of jumpers from the towers to the same soundtrack ("It's raining men"). Basically its video game characters jumping off the WTC. These videos have been up for over a month.

It seems the soundtrack is the issue.

LLH

I'm not browsing YouTube all day in search of inaproppiate (WTC) videos. I happen to stumble across this one (seeing the title and the thumbnail of people hanging out of WTC1 gave me a clue what this video could be about). As LLH said, to me the big issue is the added soundtrack and the apparent effect the creator tried to achive. For me it was about the context of this particulair video.

[tkingdoll]

I'm not browsing YouTube all day in search of inaproppiate (WTC) videos. I happen to stumble across this one (seeing the title and the thumbnail of people hanging out of WTC1 gave me a clue what this video could be about). As LLH said, to me the big issue is the added soundtrack and the apparent effect the creator tried to achive. For me it was about the context of this particulair video.

Well, 'context' is not against YouTube rules, so presumably they removed it for other reasons. For example, for featuring excessive violence, or breach of copyright.

So I guess the question is, do you find the other versions of this video that on there offensive, as you do the beheadings you mentioned?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

It may be that the other videos haven't been reported. Anyone willing to report them for graphic violence and see if they get taken down?

I mean, a soundtrack isn't graphic violence. If that's the grounds on which YouTube removed the vid in the OP, then they should remove the others. Ditto copyright.

Well the one below has been up for over a year with almost 200,000 views. If they were going to remove it, I think its safe to say they would have done it by now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVXa9-VG7r0

LLH

[Bell]

Well, 'context' is not against YouTube rules, so presumably they removed it for other reasons. For example, for featuring excessive violence, or breach of copyright.

So I guess the question is, do you find the other versions of this video that on there offensive, as you do the beheadings you mentioned?

What other versions? The original footage or the other edited / computer generated footage?

If the latter (but I haven't seen those, nor have I the intention of searching for them and watching them, so...) it would have to go with offensive.

Okay, let me first tell another story.

When I came onboard last year (just before the 5th anniversary of 9/11) I had been occupied by those events since day 1, and couldn't let it go. I could not grasp what happenend, especially to the people in the towers who where trapped and of whom many fall to their death. For years I tried to understand and accept the way those people died, but couldn't. It just didn't make sense to me. I admit, back then I have looked at the 'raw' footage, hoping to get more understanding, which sadly it didn't, it only made me feel worse, I got very depressed.

When I then learned of the so called truth movement I got mad at them, because imo they didn't allow the victims the respect they deserve, didn't aknowledge the way they died, and so I joined the JREF. Alas, facing the mindnumbing truther crap, and reading and watching more and more about the facts of 9/11, made me feel even more depressed. After a few months on here, I pulled the plug and stayed away, stayed away from 9/11 related websites, media etc. It has been about 7 months since I returned, and I have dealt with my depressed feelings regarding 9/11 (I still have other issues that depress me, but I'm working on those as well).

So yes, I have watched the original footage from people falling from the towers back then. Occasional I'll see it if they show it in a documentary about 9/11 (National Geographic's Road to 9/11 for example), but nowadays I wouldn't go looking for this footage on the internet.

Now that you all commented on the video in the OP, I realize that I might have become very biased on this subject, mainly due to my emotional bond with the subject at hand. I've noted of myself that I have become very afferse regarding killing and violence / violent deaths, be it 9/11, terrorism, war (modern or of yesteryear) or whatever other cause.

I hope this all makes sense as I have just written it in one go and was strugling to find the right wordings (since English isn't my native language). Peace!

[Spins]

I hope I don’t sound rude here, but to be frank I don’t think it’s any of your business what people choose to watch or why.
No matter what the source material is?

[Dave Rogers]

Could I suggest that this thread doesn't really belong in CT?

Dave

[Par]

No matter what the source material is?


Well, I’m not a free-speech absolutist, if that’s what you mean. For instance, I think it’s quite legitimate to prohibit genuine libel and slander, etc.

[Bell]

Well, I’m not a free-speech absolutist, if that’s what you mean. For instance, I think it’s quite legitimate to prohibit genuine libel and slander, etc.

I don't know if you have any children, but if so, and one of them was filmed while getting raped and murdered (which I really don't wish on to you) would you mind if that video showed up on YouTube?

ETA: Oops, this was intended to be a reply to Par's quote in Spins' post:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2978797&postcount=55

[Par]

I don't know if you have any children, but if so, and one of them was filmed while getting raped and murdered (which I really don't wish on to you) would you mind if that video showed up on YouTube?

ETA: Oops, this was intended to be a reply to Par's quote in Spins' post:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2978797&postcount=55


Well, yes, of course I’d mind; I’d mind very much.

[Bell]

Well, yes, of course I’d mind; I’d mind very much.

As would I. But should such hypothetical video stay on YouTube just because we can't decide what other people should or should not watch? I beg to differ. Beside freedom of expression, right to watch what you want or what have you, there is something like compassion, vice and value.

Sometimes a line has to be drawn, either to protect the public or/and to protect those affected.

[pipelineaudio]

I would sure as hell mind, but I dont know if I would try and FORCE regulations to stop it. That just opens a can of worms all too familiar lately


I probably wouldnt be above beating someone's as over it though, but making a policy? yuk

[Peephole]

When did this forum become the YouTube thought police?

[Spins]

Well, I’m not a free-speech absolutist, if that’s what you mean. For instance, I think it’s quite legitimate to prohibit genuine libel and slander, etc.
Essentially what I was getting at is there are certain things that modern civilized society as a whole considers wrong, child pornography being about the worst thing imaginable. Somehow I don't think a pedophile would get away with saying "It's none of your business what I choose to watch or why."

[Peephole]

Yakety Sax is a lot funnier anyways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8bV9iNStEI

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm tired of reacting to inappropriate humor as I get assailed severely every time I do so. For some reason, way too many people think that just because I don't laugh at this one particular joke, I don't have any sense of humor whatsoever, I'm a card-carrying member of the P.C. Legion, or both.

I'm tired of being attacked verbally for telling people to behave. I'm not their parents anyhow.

As for attention-whores, they are better off simply being reported than attacked directly, the latter being exactly what they want.

But yes... that video sounded like it sucked.

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.Oh noez.

[Par]

As would I. But should such hypothetical video stay on YouTube just because we can't decide what other people should or should not watch? I beg to differ. Beside freedom of expression, right to watch what you want or what have you, there is something like compassion, vice and value. Sometimes a line has to be drawn, either to protect the public or/and to protect those affected.


Firstly, just to clarify, it’s not the presence of the video on YouTube (or similar video sites) that I’m arguing about. As I said before, YouTube are not duty bound to provide the vehicle for the propagation unpleasant material. Earlier however, you seemed to suggest that general gruesome footage should be prohibited in some way. This, of course, is a censorship issue. Secondly, I don’t claim that the hypothetical footage you mention should remain available. Rather, that I don’t believe it is the place of a government or state to forcibly prevent people from watching it if they choose to. As I see it, offence alone can never serve as satisfactory grounds on which to suppress free-speech.

[Civilized Worm]

Another victory for the thought police! And we didn't even need to bomb any embassies this time!


Well, it's one thing to make fun of people getting their panties in a bunch about a portrait of a prophet from 1400 years ago... And another to get pissed off at someone disrespecting people who died 6 years ago and their families are still around.


Yeah, one is something you find offensive and the other is something you don't.

[Par]

Essentially what I was getting at is there are certain things that modern civilized society as a whole considers wrong, child pornography being about the worst thing imaginable. Somehow I don't think a pedophile would get away with saying "It's none of your business what I choose to watch or why."


Well, quite. He certainly would not and nor should he. The creation or consumption of such material inherently involves harming children directly or indirectly, respectively. However, if the fellow managed to create a CGI version without a child as much being looked at the wrong way, then that might be a different story.

[Bell]

Firstly, just to clarify, it’s not the presence of the video on YouTube (or similar video sites) that I’m arguing about. As I said before, YouTube are not duty bound to provide the vehicle for the propagation unpleasant material.

Correct, I only use YouTube as a recognizable example.

Earlier however, you seemed to suggest that general gruesome footage should be prohibited in some way. This, of course, is a censorship issue.

I seem to have talked myself in that corner quite a bit yes, my bad, but I think my idea falls more to the side of selfregulation. Just because certain footage is available, doesn't mean it must be published, be it iStore, YouTube or Wii Virtual Channel or any other means.

Secondly, I don’t claim that the hypothetical footage you mention should remain available. Rather, that I don’t believe it is the place of a government or state to forcibly prevent people from watching it if they choose to. As I see it, offence alone can never serve as satisfactory grounds on which to suppress free-speech.

I rever to my above answer. Allthough in a certain way the government is allready deciding in what to watch or not, such as with movie- and videogame ratings.

I don't want to thread into a discussion about "violent movies / videogames / Marylin Manson" make people go postal (there must of been dozens of studies and counterstudies) but imho I do think they are related. Not in a way that after a game of Manhunt I'll bludgeon my neighbour to death with a frying pan, but in a degree that a (small) group of people will think acting violent is normal or get apathic regarding violence.

[Civilized Worm]

I'm not browsing YouTube all day in search of inaproppiate (WTC) videos. I happen to stumble across this one (seeing the title and the thumbnail of people hanging out of WTC1 gave me a clue what this video could be about).


So if you could tell what it would be like why didn't you just ignore it and not get wound up about it?


I don't know if you have any children, but if so, and one of them was filmed while getting raped and murdered (which I really don't wish on to you) would you mind if that video showed up on YouTube?


We're not talking about some sort of snuff film here, this is news footage.

[uruk]

Well, but this is the downside of Freedom of expression/speech.
My point was - either you believe in these freedoms - or you try
to censor them, contradicting your believes concerning these
freedoms...

it's not an issue about freedom of speech, It's about what is accepted on a social level. Freedom of speech means that you can express yourself about any subject you wish in just about any manner you wish. The expression is protected by law.
But what it does not say is that you are immune to the consequence of that expression in a social sense.
If you want spew stuff that makes you look like a jerk, fine go ahead. just don't whine and complain when people start treating you like a jerk.

Anyhoo Youtube is own by a corporation. A corporation has control over it's interests. Youtube does not have to conform to freedom of speech with in its website. Just like how a company can controll what you say with its property. If I own a billboard and invite people to post whatever they want on that billboard I can decide what gets put on there because I own the billboard.

[uruk]

Freedom of speech only covers you if you are not causing harm to others. And IMO this crosses that line.
Same reason that you cannot scream fire in a crowded building. (provided that there is no fire) It's a safety issue. So not speech is considered free.

[Par]

Just because certain footage is available, doesn't mean it must be published, be it iStore, YouTube or Wii Virtual Channel or any other means.


Well, indeed. This was precisely my initial point.

Allthough in a certain way the government is allready deciding in what to watch or not, such as with movie- and videogame ratings.


Firstly, I don’t think the question of whether or not something is already happening has any bearing on whether it should happen. Secondly, I take it that you’re referring to the way in which societies tend to prevent children obtaining what is perceived to be inappropriate material. However, children are a somewhat different case. A child’s rights have not been infringed upon, for example, should its parents force it into silence, prevent it from eating nothing but ice-cream or forbid it from leaving the house at midnight. If the same restrictions were placed on a compos mentis and law-abiding adult, however, we should conclude that something is amiss.

[Bell]

So if you could tell what it would be like why didn't you just ignore it and not get wound up about it?

Part of me said "no way, nobody could have such bad taste, maybe it's not what I fear it is." Alas, should have trusted my instinct this once.

We're not talking about some sort of snuff film here, this is news footage.

No, this is abuse of newsfootage, trying to be funny at the victims expense. A very sick jokevideo that had nothing to add to anything.

I think the discussion is getting two ways, 1 the video as mentioned in the OP, 2 video material of people dying. My above answer was to 1.

But for clearity I'll address 2 as well. I acknowledged that the whole 9/11 issue, especially the victims, is still emotional to me. That's why I got so angry when I saw the video.

I'll give you that the original footage of the people falling out of the WTC is news footage and also important for not to forget what happened that day. It is terrible footage, but not into a degree that it lacks respect for the victims. What I don't need is footage of seeing people dying up and close. Would there be footage of one of the WTC victims all the way to the ground, close up, so you could see ther fear in their eyes as they were about to impact the ground, then I don't see any need to distribute such video. And frankly, I don't see the point why we should have the right to see such video except for gore value.

Sorry if my posts are all over the place. I'm tired and started this thread out in anger. I'll try to get my thought in order and make a new post clearly stating how I feel about this issue.

[Spins]

it's not an issue about freedom of speech, It's about what is accepted on a social level.
That's were this thread went wrong IMO, it's not a freedom of speech issue and I don't know why Oliver said that. At that point it was inevitable someone would get carried away and say that people should be able to watch anything they want. As I mentioned earlier this is certainly not the case for all material, although that doesn't mean I'm for strict censorship laws. In fact I think the censorship laws in the UK (for adults), on the whole, are still far too strict. I do agree with the censorship of child pornography and video depicting gross violence towards people or animals though.

I'd just like to point out though that I've never complained about a video before (including the one in the op), I just don't watch it if I disagree with the content. I don't consider myself a member of the PC brigade. :boxedin:

[Bell]

Let's recap.

I started this thread out of anger over some punk's YouTube video. The video showed the footage of people falling from the WTC with the song "it's raining men" in the background. This video is very offensive to the relatives of the victims, lacks any form of respect and made no point whatsoever. It only provides the creator of this video with a good laugh. If that's his kind of humor then there's something seriously wrong with him. There is no reason why this video should be on YouTube, it serves noone. So hell yeah, the video had to be removed.

That's were this thread went wrong IMO, it's not a freedom of speech issue and I don't know why Oliver said that. At that point it was inevitable someone would get carried away and say that people should be able to watch anything they want.

Quite right, and I tried to steer away from that discussion...

<--- Discussion about freedom of speech/expression thattaway.

... but somehow this thread turned thattaway anyhow. It then made another turn talking about gruesome video's on the internet...

I must admit if one of the people that fell or jumped from the Twin Towers was a relative of mine I'm sure I wouldn't be happy about it being posted on You Tube for comedy value. Why stop there though, what about the sickening Iraqi hostage decapitations with music for everyone to laugh at, I'm sure some ultra left wing nut will complain about freedom of speech/expression when they are removed.

Even without the music, I don't understand why such videos should be on YouTube for the whole world to see? What is the entertainment value of seeing someone getting killed?

... whereafter I kind of talked myself ino a corner because I replied without properly thinking over my answer (oh my stars!)

<snip> <snip> <snip>

I was trying to come up with a clear explanation of what I think appropiate or not, but it seems not as clearcut as I would like. I'm just learning this...

I've noted of myself that I have become very afferse regarding killing and violence / violent deaths, be it 9/11, terrorism, war (modern or of yesteryear) or whatever other cause.

For the moment all I can say regarding violent videos, is that it depends on context and achievement for a great deal. That context and achievement - or rather the lack of it - was what set me off regarding the video in the OP in the first place.

Showing a hostage, terrified, as the terrorist make their demand and then cut of his head... why should we be able to see such video? Why do we want to see it? What does this achieve?

I wish I had a clear answer on my stance regarding violent media. I'm sorry, I don't. But as I said before, I'm just learning this...

[tkingdoll]

Showing a hostage, terrified, as the terrorist make their demand and then cut of his head... why should we be able to see such video? Why do we want to see it? What does this achieve?

I don't see any difference between that and the non-soundtracked version of the 9/11 footage on YouTube. Most people viewing it do so out of morbid curiosity. It is a form of gallows entertainment. If you object to one then why not object to the other?

[ponderingturtle]

Even without the music, I don't understand why such videos should be on YouTube for the whole world to see? What is the entertainment value of seeing someone getting killed?

Have you seen the python sketch where the two office worker are working and people keep jumping out of windows above them? They place bets on who will be next.

Would crowds of people trampling people to death in mecca to Benny hill music be funny?

[billydkid]

Can anyone with a YouTube account PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE report the following video as inappropriate? :mad::mad::mad:

I don't have an account, so can't do it myself.

The video is made by some MOFU who thought it funny to put the song "it's raining men" over video of people falling out of the WTC. :mad::mad::mad:

Don't watch the video if that's not your kind of humor.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8841438976086246224

You know, I agree completely with your feelings. But tell me - isn't this just exactly where the rubber hits the road in terms of whether or not we really - and I mean really - believe in the 1st amendment?

[Francesca R]

It's precisely because these sites are for the whole world, and not just the USA, that's why. Yes, it's extremely distasteful by your standards. But people in other countries may find it hilarious. Offense and respect are incredibly subjective, locally as well as internationally. And nearly 100% of the population of the world is not related to a victim of 9/11.

The comparison with the Muhammed cartoons is extremely apt. Many people think it's laughable that a set of people can be so offended by something, they would call for the death penalty for those causing the offense. But look at the violent wishes expressed in this thread. There is no difference. Many Muslims have as much respect for Muhammed as you do for the victims of 9/11. If you can find their hysteria strange, perhaps others can find yours strange.

Either way, I think people should be careful with subjective terms like 'respect' and 'offense', particularly when it comes to a global audience.I completely agree with this.

[ponderingturtle]

You know, I agree completely with your feelings. But tell me - isn't this just exactly where the rubber hits the road in terms of whether or not we really - and I mean really - believe in the 1st amendment?

And how does that apply to YouTube? You can believe in free speech all you want, but that does not mean that pressureing organizations that use such speech is also wrong.

[Safe-Keeper]

Showing a hostage, terrified, as the terrorist make their demand and then cut of his head... why should we be able to see such video? Why do we want to see it? What does this achieve? It's not the footage that's the problem here, it's the soundtrack. How did you manage to miss that?

You know, I agree completely with your feelings. But tell me - isn't this just exactly where the rubber hits the road in terms of whether or not we really - and I mean really - believe in the 1st amendment?Two words: private site.

[Bell]

I don't see any difference between that and the non-soundtracked version of the 9/11 footage on YouTube. Most people viewing it do so out of morbid curiosity. It is a form of gallows entertainment. If you object to one then why not object to the other?

Can you name all the simularities in said footage?

[Bell]

Have you seen the python sketch where the two office worker are working and people keep jumping out of windows above them? They place bets on who will be next.

I can't recall seeing it, but Python is fiction. I might as well bring up the scene in Die Hard where Hans Gruber falls of Nakatomi building.

Would crowds of people trampling people to death in mecca to Benny hill music be funny?

I don't think that would be funny.

[Bell]

You know, I agree completely with your feelings. But tell me - isn't this just exactly where the rubber hits the road in terms of whether or not we really - and I mean really - believe in the 1st amendment?

It's not about the right of free speech, it is about if it is necessary to say / express everything possible, without having to think about impact or consequence.

Even these boards don't allow for everything to be said. Why is that? Could not be because the JREF could be held accountable for any nasty stuff on the boards:

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the forum are solely the opinion of their authors.

[Bell]

It's not the footage that's the problem here, it's the soundtrack. How did you manage to miss that?

I think now I have missed it completely :confused:

[Francesca R]

It's not about the right of free speech, it is about if it is necessary to say / express everything possible, without having to think about impact or consequence.But constraints like that (imposed by someone else) are a negation of free speech.

Even these boards don't allow for everything to be said. Why is that? Could not be because the JREF could be held accountable for any nasty stuff on the boards:Yes—the facility to post on this board is a privately owned one, not a public one.

[tkingdoll]

Can you name all the simularities in said footage?

Real people really die at the hands of terrorists. Isn't that the thing you are objecting to?

If you are going to examine your emotional and moral response to the beheadings videos, can you tell me why those should be unpalatable to you, but footage of 9/11 (sans jolly music) is not?

Surely people dying at the hands of religious zealots is what bothers you about the beheadings videos? Why is that different for the 9/11 video?

Because at the moment it kinda looks like you are saying "it's OK to watch 9/11 footage as long as you don't watch it with silly music being played".

[Bell]

Real people really die at the hands of terrorists. Isn't that the thing you are objecting to?

If you are going to examine your emotional and moral response to the beheadings videos, can you tell me why those should be unpalatable to you, but footage of 9/11 (sans jolly music) is not?

Surely people dying at the hands of religious zealots is what bothers you about the beheadings videos? Why is that different for the 9/11 video?

Because at the moment it kinda looks like you are saying "it's OK to watch 9/11 footage as long as you don't watch it with silly music being played".

I think you missed my point, prolly because the focus of the discussion came to lay on 9/11 and beheadings. My objection is not solely to the violence acted out by terrorists and the dying because of it. It's violence and death period. And how much of that violence and death we should see, and how close up we should be.

Violence and death will never go away, and we can't close our eyes to it. But does that mean we have to show every detail of it? Full frame?

To take another example outside the terrorists, when a schoolbus full of children is hit by a train and the bus is totally wrecked, do we need to see video of all the mangled and mutilated death children? Close up? Or would a picture of the wreck of the bus suffice?

[Bell]

But constraints like that (imposed by someone else) are a negation of free speech.

What constraints? I'm talking about if the right to free speech means that anything goes. I don't think so. Think morality.

Yes—the facility to post on this board is a privately owned one, not a public one.

But why are the rules here in the first place?

[Francesca R]

What constraints? I'm talking about if the right to free speech means that anything goes. I don't think so. Think morality.The right to free speech means that anything (speechwise) goes.

But why are the rules here in the first place?Whose rules? The forum's? Because, as I said, it is somebody else's "property".

[ponderingturtle]

Real people really die at the hands of terrorists. Isn't that the thing you are objecting to?

If you are going to examine your emotional and moral response to the beheadings videos, can you tell me why those should be unpalatable to you, but footage of 9/11 (sans jolly music) is not?

Surely people dying at the hands of religious zealots is what bothers you about the beheadings videos? Why is that different for the 9/11 video?

Because at the moment it kinda looks like you are saying "it's OK to watch 9/11 footage as long as you don't watch it with silly music being played".

So no one should take issue with footage of people being exicuted say by the eletric chair with some suitably ironic music playing along if they support the death penalty?

I do not think this is the real issue, it is that footage of people dieing should not be used for cheap laughs.

[tkingdoll]

I think you missed my point, prolly because the focus of the discussion came to lay on 9/11 and beheadings. My objection is not solely to the violence acted out by terrorists and the dying because of it. It's violence and death period. And how much of that violence and death we should see, and how close up we should be.

Violence and death will never go away, and we can't close our eyes to it. But does that mean we have to show every detail of it? Full frame?

To take another example outside the terrorists, when a schoolbus full of children is hit by a train and the bus is totally wrecked, do we need to see video of all the mangled and mutilated death children? Close up? Or would a picture of the wreck of the bus suffice?

So, you can either show no death and violence, a degree of death and violence, or everything.

It sounds like you are suggesting the first of those, but have not reported the 9/11 footage that does not have the soundtrack. Indeed you indicated that you don't have a problem with it being available to view.

If you are suggesting a 'degree' of death and violence is acceptable, can you precisely describe the line at which a video crosses into unacceptable? YouTube clearly has the ability to judge that, as they wouldn't allow the beheadings video but do allow the 9/11 video. Can you therefore see why it is disingenuous of them to remove the exact same footage with a musical soundtrack added?

If a picture of a wreck of the bus suffices, why do newspapers sell more copies when they have more graphic pictures?

It sounds to me like what you object to is the concept of 'morbid curiosity'. Welcome to the species.

[UserGoogol]

Not to derail this thread in a discussion about "freedom of expression" but there are limits to how people should express themselfs. In this particulair case it has to do with respect for the victims and their relatives.

Respect for the dead is retarded. Dead people are dead, and thus they don't have feelings to be hurt. Their relatives do and that should be taken into consideration, but the idea that having people make fun of your dead close ones is such a horrible emotion that NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO DO IT EVER even if there are thousands of people who are entertained while the close ones can fairly easily avoid this video can get seems rather disproportionate. Additionally, a reasonable person has to expect this sort of thing. In this age of global connectivity, somebody somewhere is going to be making fun of any tragedy which becomes news. Not just big things like September 11th, but even small things like a murder in a small town. To feel bad at the mere existance of a particular parody video on the Internet is therefore utterly irrational.

Furthermore, this is funny. It would be funnier if the video was better synced with the video, (the Yakkety Sax one is better) but it's okay as it is. Black comedy is a well established premise. Furthermore, it is also a principle of comedy that the more serious something is, the more enjoyable it is to make fun of it. Well what's more serious than actual people dying in an event which changed would ultimately drastically change global affairs for years to come? To complement this, it is not unreasonable to suppose that September 11th is treated too seriously, because after all, people die every day, the only difference is that on September 11th, the deaths happened to be clustered more than usual. Thus, we have a very serious situation which, at the same time, many people think is treated too seriously and thus needs to be taken down a peg. To complement this by tossing some silly music is textbook comedy.

[ETA: Also, I feel that this isn't really graphic violence. A person falling at terminal velocity isn't violence, it doesn't get "violent" until they land. It merely suggests violence.]

[Bell]

So, you can either show no death and violence, a degree of death and violence, or everything.

It sounds like you are suggesting the first of those, but have not reported the 9/11 footage that does not have the soundtrack. Indeed you indicated that you don't have a problem with it being available to view.

If you are suggesting a 'degree' of death and violence is acceptable, can you precisely describe the line at which a video crosses into unacceptable? YouTube clearly has the ability to judge that, as they wouldn't allow the beheadings video but do allow the 9/11 video. Can you therefore see why it is disingenuous of them to remove the exact same footage with a musical soundtrack added?

Indeed, that is what I'm saying. As for precisely describing where the boundary lies, that would be quite impossible. There are as many ways of filming or photographing a scene, as there are ways to cross that boundary (my boundary, mind you).

If a picture of a wreck of the bus suffices, why do newspapers sell more copies when they have more graphic pictures?

It sounds to me like what you object to is the concept of 'morbid curiosity'. Welcome to the species.

Hey thanks. I just arrived here from Planet X ;)

[tkingdoll]

So do you agree that to remove one visual of 9/11 but leave exactly the same visual intact elsewhere on the same site is not a consistent policy?

[Bell]

Respect for the dead is retarded. Dead people are dead, and thus they don't have feelings to be hurt. Their relatives do and that should be taken into consideration, but the idea that having people make fun of your dead close ones is such a horrible emotion that NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO DO IT EVER even if there are thousands of people who are entertained while the close ones can fairly easily avoid this video can get seems rather disproportionate. Additionally, a reasonable person has to expect this sort of thing. In this age of global connectivity, somebody somewhere is going to be making fun of any tragedy which becomes news. Not just big things like September 11th, but even small things like a murder in a small town. To feel bad at the mere existance of a particular parody video on the Internet is therefore utterly irrational.

Furthermore, this is funny. It would be funnier if the video was better synced with the video, (the Yakkety Sax one is better) but it's okay as it is. Black comedy is a well established premise. Furthermore, it is also a principle of comedy that the more serious something is, the more enjoyable it is to make fun of it. Well what's more serious than actual people dying in an event which changed would ultimately drastically change global affairs for years to come? To complement this, it is not unreasonable to suppose that September 11th is treated too seriously, because after all, people die every day, the only difference is that on September 11th, the deaths happened to be clustered more than usual. Thus, we have a very serious situation which, at the same time, many people think is treated too seriously and thus needs to be taken down a peg. To complement this by tossing some silly music is textbook comedy.

[ETA: Also, I feel that this isn't really graphic violence. A person falling at terminal velocity isn't violence, it doesn't get "violent" until they land. It merely suggests violence.]

I never said you cannot make fun of 9/11 or the victims or any victim. It's the way how it's done. In this case very distasteful. As said before, it adds to nothing.

It all depends on what one would find funny, I guess. Some people rofl over a fartjoke, others would look for more clever humor.

[Bell]

So do you agree that to remove one visual of 9/11 but leave exactly the same visual intact elsewhere on the same site is not a consistent policy?

If you are stricly speaking about the images, then yes.

Alas, most videos also come with sound. And it was the combination of the two that bothered me and which I found distasteful.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

[ETA: Also, I feel that this isn't really graphic violence. A person falling at terminal velocity isn't violence, it doesn't get "violent" until they land. It merely suggests violence.]

Yeah its not the falling that kills you, its the stopping.

LLH

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I do not think this is the real issue, it is that footage of people dieing should not be used for cheap laughs.

Why not?

LLH

[UserGoogol]

I never said you cannot make fun of 9/11 or the victims or any victim. It's the way how it's done. In this case very distasteful. As said before, it adds to nothing.

It all depends on what one would find funny, I guess. Some people rofl over a fartjoke, others would look for more clever humor.

Distastefulness is funny. As a loose rule of thumb, the more distasteful something is, the funnier it is. Fart jokes are (generally) unfunny precisely because they are so benignly dickish. To be really funny, you need to attack the fundamental foundations of society itself. But yeah, it's certainly subjective.