Forums → WEPR → three guys, one hammer- internet censorship
| 32 | 9414 |
I recently was led to this video in the depths of the internet, which I will NOT link, called "three guys one hammer". It is a brutal home- shot video of three teens from an Eastern European country brutally beating a man to death with a hammer, and stabbing him repeatedly with a screwdriver in the stomach and face.
After watching this horrifying video, I am truly... scared. My head hurts, trying to figure out how someone can do that to another human being, and I almost vomited. This leads me to a very hard point. We need to stop videos like this from being on the internet. I discovered it by accident. I don't want to know the sick F#$% that's going to intentionally find this video to watch it, and they shouldn't.
The whole story is three teens, all the age of 19, that go on a thrill- killing rampage that lasted one month, and 21 victims. Including a pregnant woman, men, and children. The pregnant woman was eviscerated and the dead fetus sent to her father's doorstep.
Fortunately, those PSYCHOS were caught and sentenced for murder. The explanation bringing me to this: We should not allow videos like this to continue circling the internet. There needs to be some form of censorship that takes stuff like that down. I've seen other similar videos of war crimes, and those have affected me just as much. These videos need to be erased from the internet. NOW
- 32 Replies
...so freedom of the media encompasses everything? Someone could run through a playground killing children with a friend video taping it, put it on the internet before getting arrested, and we would be in the wrong for attempting to take it down?
Why is the taking down of child pornography permissible? Why do people get in trouble for it? Shouldn't they be allowed to do that just because of "freedom of the media?"
In the very first few days of the Iraq invasion there was a reporter that was over there who was drawing out all kinds of military positions and movements in the sand... I'm pretty sure he got in really big trouble. Are you going to say that your "right to media freedom" is greater than their right to life? That act could've (maybe did) put a lot of people's lives at risk. If the "freedom of the media" is absolute, then that reporter was served a very grave injustice. ...but what then of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" What happens when they conflict? If the freedom of the media isn't absolute, then are there other instances where it isn't free to do what it wants?
If someone were to **** another person (forced intercourse), video the incident, kill the person, and then upload it(or the vid somehow leaked), then is it a grave injustice to have that video removed from any and all sites that it is found on? The only people I know of who seek out vids like that are usually doing it to fulfill some grotesque sexual urge, they enjoy laughing at the sight of someone else writhing in agony and/or dying, or they're the victim of "Hey, go to this site and watch this vid..." b/c the suggester wanted to see their shocked reactions.
I believe that most if not all of the people whose deaths are showcased in those videos didn't consent to how they were treated nor did they consent to the video. I'm having a hard time labeling this censorship as bad... forgive me for that.
What if the individual who is being taken advantage of has the capacity to mid video blurt out "I don't want anyone to watch this!!!." I doubt that'd come to mind in that situation... but still. Does a person's consent (or refusal of consent) only matter in life? ...after they're dead it no longer matters?
I'm seeing the idealism hook dangling out there... I just can't bite it.
You must be logged in to post a reply!