What precisely is your definition of gore? Could you define it in a way that makes it illegal to share images of murders and car crashes as entertainment, without criminalizing, say, journalists documenting a war?
CNN covered the Daniel Pearl story just fine without showing the video. There's no good reason to share a murder video for entertainment just like there's no good reason to share a rape video for entertainment.
I didn't say there was a good reason, in fact I agree there is no good reason to share such videos for entertainment.
I asked a specific question about your definition of gore, so I could try to engage with your opinion in good faith without making assumptions. But instead of answering the question, you dodged it with a cherry-picked example that doesn't represent every scenario that I'm considering. That makes me inclined to believe that your position isn't particularly well-considered.
Maybe the reason you get downvoted whenever you bring this up while "nobody has a good argument on why it should remain legal" is because you don't provide enough substance for anyone to argue against...
Definition of gore would be something like photos/videos of people suffering from graphic bodily harm shared for entertainment purposes. Medical stuff shared in a professional setting is different. Crime scene photos shared during an investigation is different. I don't think anyone is arguing about what is and isn't gore.
So, a picture of someone "sleeping" with no obvious bodily harm isn't gore .. regardless of whether they're sleeping or whether they've been poisoned?
Yesterday morning I watched, as I was weeding, a mobile abattoir operator stun, drain blood, skin, gut and hang in a portable cool room eight full weight sheep, turning them over at about 12 minutes per sheep - pretty decent pace.
Later I helped make a bonfire to burn the eight sets of skins, heads, guts, trotters (which we shovelled and slung from a single axle trailer onto the wood pallets on top of the stacked wood underneath).
Some of this was filmed and posted to my 91 year old father (by the land owner) - is that "gore" ?
I'm thinking this is more about what you personally find disgusting and seeking to impose that PoV on everyone; butchers, nurses, first responders, farmers, etc.
I was specifically talking about photos and videos of people who have been murdered or died in accidents. Those photos should not be shared for entertainment just the same as photos of children being raped should not be shared for entertainment.
Yes, I do believe that killing animals is morally wrong, but that isn't what I was talking about.
You might want to review all that you have said, you started (IIRC) with "gore" (ill defined) to be treated as "Child Sexual Abuse Material" is - banned from the internet and a chargeable offence.
As an aside: I'm in the "victims of crime should be shielded from publication, especially prior to trial" camp - I'm even prepared to support the notion that perpetrators of crime should be largely scrubbed rather than glorified by the obsessive.
You're still not clear on where your proposed boundaries lie; Daniel Pearl was filmed being killed - that's a snuff video and quite distinct from "photos of people who have been murdered" - eg: I could link to a photo of Martin Luther King and I would assume that would be fine for you.
Perhaps work on sharpening your language about what is and isn't to be allowed in your new world order.
For example, my father, in his prime working for the St John's Volunteer Ambulance in remote areas, would likely have wanted at various times to have sent video of an impaled accident victim, still alive and in pain, to various doctors / fire responders, etc. in order to get pragmatic advice on how to stabilise and extract them.
This would effectively be transmitted torture porn.
Comments
What precisely is your definition of gore? Could you define it in a way that makes it illegal to share images of murders and car crashes as entertainment, without criminalizing, say, journalists documenting a war?
CNN covered the Daniel Pearl story just fine without showing the video. There's no good reason to share a murder video for entertainment just like there's no good reason to share a rape video for entertainment.
I didn't say there was a good reason, in fact I agree there is no good reason to share such videos for entertainment.
I asked a specific question about your definition of gore, so I could try to engage with your opinion in good faith without making assumptions. But instead of answering the question, you dodged it with a cherry-picked example that doesn't represent every scenario that I'm considering. That makes me inclined to believe that your position isn't particularly well-considered.
Maybe the reason you get downvoted whenever you bring this up while "nobody has a good argument on why it should remain legal" is because you don't provide enough substance for anyone to argue against...
Definition of gore would be something like photos/videos of people suffering from graphic bodily harm shared for entertainment purposes. Medical stuff shared in a professional setting is different. Crime scene photos shared during an investigation is different. I don't think anyone is arguing about what is and isn't gore.
So, a picture of someone "sleeping" with no obvious bodily harm isn't gore .. regardless of whether they're sleeping or whether they've been poisoned?
Yesterday morning I watched, as I was weeding, a mobile abattoir operator stun, drain blood, skin, gut and hang in a portable cool room eight full weight sheep, turning them over at about 12 minutes per sheep - pretty decent pace.
Later I helped make a bonfire to burn the eight sets of skins, heads, guts, trotters (which we shovelled and slung from a single axle trailer onto the wood pallets on top of the stacked wood underneath).
Some of this was filmed and posted to my 91 year old father (by the land owner) - is that "gore" ?
Yeah that's disgusting
It's pretty routine.
I'm thinking this is more about what you personally find disgusting and seeking to impose that PoV on everyone; butchers, nurses, first responders, farmers, etc.
Which is understandable, but wrong headed.
I was specifically talking about photos and videos of people who have been murdered or died in accidents. Those photos should not be shared for entertainment just the same as photos of children being raped should not be shared for entertainment.
Yes, I do believe that killing animals is morally wrong, but that isn't what I was talking about.
You might want to review all that you have said, you started (IIRC) with "gore" (ill defined) to be treated as "Child Sexual Abuse Material" is - banned from the internet and a chargeable offence.
As an aside: I'm in the "victims of crime should be shielded from publication, especially prior to trial" camp - I'm even prepared to support the notion that perpetrators of crime should be largely scrubbed rather than glorified by the obsessive.
You're still not clear on where your proposed boundaries lie; Daniel Pearl was filmed being killed - that's a snuff video and quite distinct from "photos of people who have been murdered" - eg: I could link to a photo of Martin Luther King and I would assume that would be fine for you.
Perhaps work on sharpening your language about what is and isn't to be allowed in your new world order.
For example, my father, in his prime working for the St John's Volunteer Ambulance in remote areas, would likely have wanted at various times to have sent video of an impaled accident victim, still alive and in pain, to various doctors / fire responders, etc. in order to get pragmatic advice on how to stabilise and extract them.
This would effectively be transmitted torture porn.