Ban links to violent content?

magpie

As far as I can make out Boards does not allow any links to porn, so I wonder is it time to start applying the same policy to other 'nasties', in other words violence.

What got me thinking about it was this thread which has the warning "violent video" rather than "Video containing audio recordings of death screams of person being shot repeatedly". There have been a few of these kinds of thing, like links to the 2 guys in Baghdad set on fire and dragged behind cars etc.

I wonder is it time to put a ban on these links for the same reason as the porn ones; in other words:

"Its out there if you really want to find it, but we don't necessarily condone or encourage you to watch it."

Doctor J

I'd agree with this 100%

The Bollox

I also agree

feylya

Agreed. While discussion of it is ok imo for political, humanitarian or other reasons, linking directly to the videos is wrong. There's plenty of other places on the internet to find these videos, no point making Boards.ie one of them.

TerrorFirmer

Also agree with this one.

Boston

I completely disagree. While the linking to any graphic material should not be allowed if it's soul purpose is voyeurism or some kinda perverted entertainment, I can think of many instances where it would be acceptable to do so. For instance of a "Is the dead penalty ok" thread, should material should be allowed.

me too

Giblet

It's really an admin choice here, what they want posted on their servers. I have no bias either way, I just don't look at it.

Firewalkwithme

LiouVille wrote:

I completely disagree. While the linking to any graphic material should not be allowed if it's soul purpose is voyeurism or some kinda perverted entertainment, I can think of many instances where it would be acceptable to do so. For instance of a "Is the dead penalty ok" thread, should material should be allowed.

I don't think anyone here needs to view a video of an execution on order to make a judgement on whether or not the death penalty is a suitable method of punishment!

CuLT

I'm pretty sure that rule is already there, it's just not written down because most people have more sense.

Boston

Despatch wrote:

I don't think anyone here needs to view a video of an execution on order to make a judgement on whether or not the death penalty is a suitable method of punishment!

Did I say that?

However an audio recording of a murder victium is another question,.

breadmonkey

There was a pretty graphic written account of the incident in question contained int he thread. After reading that, I don't know why anyone would watch it.

As Giblet said, I just don't watch it. Why did you?

Firewalkwithme

LiouVille wrote:

Did I say that?

Well TBH your post didn't make a whole lot of sense so it was a little difficult to try to work out what your point was.

Boston

Despatch wrote:

Well TBH your post didn't make a whole lot of sense so it was a little difficult to try to work out what your point was.

blah blah blah

Firewalkwithme

LiouVille wrote:

blah blah blah

Thanks for clearing that up :rolleyes:

lostexpectation

CuLT wrote:

I'm pretty sure that rule is already there, it's just not written down because most people have more sense.

well then the post should be removed now then.



you shouldn't post links like that for cheap thrills, there sites out there for that

stevenmu

I'd disagree tbh, as long as it's on-topic and suitably marked then I think it's fine. I'd actually feel the same way about porn too, but because of the Irish religious history and the gender issues involved there's always going to be a much stronger outcry against porn. Also, at least a violent video is going to potentially promote some kind of discussion about the horrors of war or whatever the context is. Porn generally is a very good conversation starter

magpie wrote:

"violent video" rather than "Video containing audio recordings of death screams of person being shot repeatedly".

I haven't watched the video, or looked at thread, having no interest in seeing it, but that seems like an adequate warning to me.

Gilgamesh

lostexpectation wrote:

well then the post should be removed now then.



you shouldn't post links like that for cheap thrills, there sites out there for that

well did you report the post at any time? I bet not
normally if enough people do so, the mods will react,

Goodshape

Aye, the video in question was claerly marked and tbh wasn't all that visually graphic.

Although without the written description which followed (a couple of posts later) the video did not offer much in the way of a discussion piece; it's just screams and gun shots - quite imposable to know whats actually going on. With the written description of the event, the video itself wasn't really needed at all.

seamus

In general, yes.

That thread remained because I wanted to wait until I got home from work before looking at it. By that time, a surprisingly intelligent and reasonable debate had sprung up about it.

Aside from that, I wouldn't consider the video to be graphic. Haunting, yes, graphic, no. You don't see anyone get shot, you see the guns firing. Far less graphic than a Vietnam movie, except that people don't actually die or distrubingly scream in pain/fear in the movies.

Ultimately, Gilgamesh brings up the best point. I haven't received a single report about the post.

[Edit: Just as a sidenote on Goodshape's point - the screams wouldn't be as bad if I hadn't read the news piece first, in fact the entire scene would have made less sense.]

chern0byl

Im sorry i watched the video. It should have had a better warning message but dont push the nanny state.This place in the last year has become "nannyish" enough already.

stevenmu

I don't think anybody has mentioned why this type of video clip should be banned, is it because it could have some kind of impact or do some kind of damage to people, or is it, as I suspect, really just a question of taste ?

Going on the assumption that most people wouldn't like pickled onion, tuna and brown sauce sandwiches, should delis be banned form serving them in case someone accidentally orders one without realising what's in it ?

CuLT

stevenmu wrote:

I don't think anybody has mentioned why this type of video clip should be banned, is it because it could have some kind of impact or do some kind of damage to people, or is it, as I suspect, really just a question of taste ?

Going on the assumption that most people wouldn't like pickled onion, tuna and brown sauce sandwiches, should delis be banned form serving them in case someone accidentally orders one without realising what's in it ?

Most people don't take personal offence at tuna.

I agree in general with the "where would we draw the line?" idea though.

ARGINITE

magpie wrote:

other 'nasties'

I think we would have a hard time finding things that we could talk about then.

If people really found it offensive then seamus would know about it.

seamus wrote:

Ultimately, Gilgamesh brings up the best point. I haven't received a single report about the post.

So should this be gotten rid of to?

Karoma

As long as it is in context, on-topic, and clearly labelled - I see no problem with posting to anything; either pornographic or violent. Ultimately, the choice to click on a link is the individual user's and neither should it be the responsibility / perogative! I can understand the concern that it may lower the general tone of a forum or Boards.ie in general - but taste is subjective, and again, the responsibility of each user. (Example: Try censoring and distinguishing between porn and nudity in an arts forum. There is a line - and it is really down to a mod or mods to judge; and they'll generally wait until somebody raises an objection (You know the link!) )

(I haven't read any of the threads, or viewed the content linked previously - simply because I have no interest. I am writing in general terms as the discussion was centred on more wide/general issue of censorship. So, I apologise if I am missing a key point..)

Dave!

I disagree... There was sufficient warning for that video; if you didn't want to see a violent video, then why did you go into the thread? Nobody needs to be mammied, use your own sense. Maybe making a warning compulsary would be a better idea, to please all parties.

chern0byl

DaveMcG wrote:

I disagree... There was sufficient warning for that video.

"Warning violent video" is not sufficient when what actually happened is some bloke was murdered with the most horrible screams i have ever heard.

Dave!

What did you expect? People standing in a circle holding hands? It meets all the criteria of a violent video... Should the thread-starter have put 'Very violent video' instead? Did you go into that thread hoping for some "light" violence, or something? Where should we cross the line? People are offended/disgusted by different things; I don't like clowns, they scare me -- should clowns be banned too?

Like I said, a clear warning and maybe an outline of what happens might be in order. But really, going into a thread with 'Warning violent video' in the subject, what did you expect? And the thread-starter had a little sad face, too... That's not the norm if it's some bloke getting hit in the head with a football kind of violence. But not to get into the thread-starter's psychology, if you were at all skeptical about the content, you could have scrolled down the page and read exactly what happens (although the video doesn't actually show most of it), and other users' responses. On top of that, the screams and gun-fire don't happen until about a minute into the video, so it's not like you clicked on the link and immediately saw someone's brains exploding on the screen. You had sufficient warning as far as I'm concerned.

WhiteWashMan

seamus wrote:

I haven't received a single report about the post.
.]

recheck your mail....

i didnt delete it because you got in there first, so im leaving it to you to deal with.
personally, i agree that this sort of material should not be on here.
if you want this stuff, go to ogrish.com or whatever its called. you can see plenty of good snuff movies there if thats what blows your skirt up.

regi

I'm not the moral compass of the admins, I'm afraid.

I'd wonder what the legal position was. I would incline towards Seamus' view that the debate at least is definately worth keeping.

Karoma

chern0byl wrote:

"Warning violent video" is not sufficient when what actually happened is some bloke was murdered with the most horrible screams i have ever heard.

It said VIOLENT.... WTF did you expect!?!
Would you rather, that any material that is the least bit controversial be submitted the [strike]MiniTruth?[/strike] mods? - after which, a meeting of all the mods will convene. Tea will be drank. Videos watched. And certs of PG/15/18 applied.
pfft! The material is linked -not embedded. You have to click on a link/make an effort to retrieve the information. Tip: if it says violent..chances are there is going to be violence! (shocking!?) It is a qualitive term, and as such "how violent" will be subject to different tastes. As you seem to be offended, how about you don't click on anything that may offend you (Like things marked "violent")

:rolleyes:

John

stevenmu wrote:

I'd disagree tbh, as long as it's on-topic and suitably marked then I think it's fine. I'd actually feel the same way about porn too, but because of the Irish religious history and the gender issues involved there's always going to be a much stronger outcry against porn.

I think the problem with porn on this site (and the violence) is nothing to do with an Irish stigma against sex or protecting adults from violent images but with the fact that you only have to be 13 to join the site. I know by not allowing links to porn on this site isn't going to stop underagers googling it and same with the violence but it's covering the admins asses from angry parents holding them liable for making obscene material available to underage kids.

I'm not against censorship but let's face it, some 13 year olds may be mature enough to not be affected by pictures of naked ladies but some will be adversely affected. Once you're old enough to cop on, you're old enough to seek out whatever you want yourself. However I don't think boards.ie should be taken to court because some kid sees something he shouldn't have because of one of the posts.

Karoma

John2, That is a fair point. However, the content is not hosted on Boards servers, nor is it embedded in the thread. Also part of the T&C for signing up I'm sure states that user posts do not represent the opinion or belief or are in any way,shape or form an endorsement of Boards.ie or management.
Is Boards management expected to be liable for any offensive remark or post also?

chern0byl

DaveMcG wrote:

What did you expect?

Violence, not murder.

Karoma

What have you got against crows?!
Ahem.

So... torture footage is OK, state executions NOK?
... just.....

Goodshape

Karoma wrote:

Also part of the T&C for signing up I'm sure states that user posts do not represent the opinion or belief or are in any way,shape or form an endorsement of Boards.ie or management.
Is Boards management expected to be liable for any offensive remark or post also?

Actually, I think the law in this country states that Boards.ie managment IS liable for the content posted by it's members. Unfortunitly.

Speaking as someone who participated in the thread, I think if I were a mod I would have sniped the video link and left the rest. As I said above, the video itself isn't really necessary when you have the writen description.

John R

Karoma wrote:

John2, That is a fair point. However, the content is not hosted on Boards servers, nor is it embedded in the thread. Also part of the T&C for signing up I'm sure states that user posts do not represent the opinion or belief or are in any way,shape or form an endorsement of Boards.ie or management.

None of which would necessarily stop a lawsuit being filed and won.

Karoma wrote:

Is Boards management expected to be liable for any offensive remark or post also?

Legally they are classed as publishers, the same as a newspaper owner so yes they could be held liable.

Having said that the likelihood of that happening is very small but as boards gets bigger and more well known it could be targetted by anti-{whatever} groups looking to make a well publicised point by going after an easy target.

My own personal opinion is that the porn ban is OTT, a private forum could easily be set up to limit the casual surfer from happening upon it. It is kind of sad that just about the only thing that is completely out of bounds on boards is porn. A parallel with prudish old Ireland is hard to avoid.

But if that is what the Admins want then so be it, there is no shortage of other places so it is hardly the end of the world.



As for the people who watched the video in question and are now complaining, what exactly is the problem? Either;
A. you are too stupid to understand the meaning of "violent video" so you just clicked the link because it was there and were caught out by the content of the violent video.

B. You understood the warning "violent video", you knew that you were going to watch a violent video, you wanted to watch a violent video but then when you saw the video it turned out to be the wrong kind of violence for your sensibilities. The video upset you, even more so because you had wanted to see it in the first place so now you want the site to ban such things so you won't have to face up to your conflicted desires again.

C. You clicked and watched the link with the full knowledge that you weren't going to like it just so you would have something to complain about, now you are using your moral indignation to force your values on to everyone else. Congratulations, the spirit of Mary whitehouse is alive within you, my dearest hope is that you end up looking like the miserable old hag too.

Whatever your reasons for watching the link the problem you have lies with yourselves.


I don't think these links should be banned as long as they have a warning attached, although I have little interest in watching them myself. I think I'll just stick with the porn, much more enjoyable than watching people getting killed.

RuggieBear

thing is you can get porn anywhere.....why does boards have to have it as well?

Karoma

That's pretty much where I was going with my post John R - but yours was far more coherent. Perhaps I should start sleeping again..

Anyhow.. the point about the T&C (Which was raised previously: pointing out that Boards expects 13 years+ to browse without a guardian present) is that it doesn't hold water, nor is it any sort of judge of character..(I'll come back to this point another time when I can state a more coherent resoning)
This thread drags me into the further deeper issue : how stupid are some users? How about an IQ and personality test rather than a button attched to T&C?

seamus

WhiteWashMan wrote:

recheck your mail....

Ah, they only arrived *after* I made that post.

With AH, the general ethos is: If 13-year-old Billy shouldn't be looking at it (from a "His mum will sue boards" POV), then I remove it. This stayed up for the reasons I outlined above.

WhiteWashMan

i'd wonder why we went to all the hassle to put up a sex and sexuality forum so people could discuss sexual issues in a private confim and yet violent footage is allowed.

now, far from being prudish or squimish, i do think there are limits that need to be set.
advertising is not allowed, but footage of death are.
spam is not allowed, but terror is ok.

as regi says, i am also not the moral compass of boards.ie, nor do i stand on a soapbox and shout to the public, but i think its bad taste. dead baby jokes are not tolerated on boards.ie, but dead people are?

it may have promoted discussion, but why do you need a video to do that?

magpie

i'd wonder why we went to all the hassle to put up a sex and sexuality forum so people could discuss sexual issues in a private confim and yet violent footage is allowed.

now, far from being prudish or squimish, i do think there are limits that need to be set.
advertising is not allowed, but footage of death are.
spam is not allowed, but terror is ok.

Precisely

bounty

I am against banning violent content.

stevenmu

John2 wrote:

I think the problem with porn on this site (and the violence) is nothing to do with an Irish stigma against sex or protecting adults from violent images but with the fact that you only have to be 13 to join the site. I know by not allowing links to porn on this site isn't going to stop underagers googling it and same with the violence but it's covering the admins asses from angry parents holding them liable for making obscene material available to underage kids.

I'm not against censorship but let's face it, some 13 year olds may be mature enough to not be affected by pictures of naked ladies but some will be adversely affected. Once you're old enough to cop on, you're old enough to seek out whatever you want yourself. However I don't think boards.ie should be taken to court because some kid sees something he shouldn't have because of one of the posts.

Good points, I don't think boards should have porn, but I wouldn't be strongly against it if it were to happen.

seamus

After further consideration, link removed. The thread stays - the news description I think is adequate for anyone to join in if they wish.

GoneShootin

And finally the weather

A storm in a teacup was spotted today, starting off at a strong category "Lyons Blend", but finally withering to a rather bland "mostly milk".

Graphic Videos - either Sexual or Violent in nature, should be banned. Everything else is fair game. If you really want to offer the ability of such links but protect the "innocent" young teens, setup another paid forum.

Mmm, paying for sexual and violent movies. The last time I did that was when I was last at the cinema!

magpie

Do us a podcast about it.

HelterSkelter

breadmonkey wrote:

There was a pretty graphic written account of the incident in question contained int he thread. After reading that, I don't know why anyone would watch it.

As Giblet said, I just don't watch it. Why did you?

I watched it, I was curious.

LegacyUser

Am I wrong by thinking that they're are two sets of reasonings behind the movement to ban 'inappropriate' content.

1. Person clicks on like out of curiousity, and is so shocked/horrified/apalled by link that wants a complete banning of related content, even though in reality they clicked on link out of curiousity and free choice.

2. Person clicks on like out of curiousity, and is so shocked/horrified/apalled by link that wants a complete banning of related content, because they are conscious of the fact that it could be viewed by minors etc...

Person #1, IMO is a sensationalist, and want something to rant about. Its the old cliché of Adam in the Garden of Eden, he knows its bad for him, yet as a human he is fallible, and he does what he shouldnt do. In other words, he cant keep his paws off it, even though he doesnt want to see it, the draw of the unknown is too much.

Person #2, makes a lot of valid points. I work all day long on the 'net, and I've seen a lot of what there is to see. The internet is a commodity that we as a society are expecting just like our other utilities, e.g. water, power, heat, sewerage. In a few years out homes will come with internet as standard, more so than standard phone lines and tv cable, more like electricity. Sometime in the near future there will be a huge legal case involving what the legal eagles call ones "duty of care".

If as a parent you let your child online unsupervised and unregulated, then its easy to say you're a fool. The issue is a little deeper than that. Most parents at the moment are not tech-savvy, and little Johnny is a whiz on the computer. Mom & Pop dont understand all this technology, so they just leave him to it. Now if little Johnny stumbles/is mailed something he shouldnt be seeing, are the parent liable, or is the content provider liable?

The quicker people realise that the WWW is like having Wal-Mart/Amsterdam/Las Vegas/Basra/...(*insert anywhere or anything you feel appropriate), in you own living room, the better people will be able to freely express themselves without the fear or censorship.

Just my 2¢

bru

chern0byl

WhiteWashMan wrote:

i'd wonder why we went to all the hassle to put up a sex and sexuality forum so people could discuss sexual issues in a private confim and yet violent footage is allowed.

Economics. People quite readily paid for access to one, but your typical board user is not going to pay for violent video footage that is available elsewhere.
Sexuality, is sexuality discussed by Irish people which doesnt exist anywhere else.

GoneShootin

magpie wrote:

Do us a podcast about it.

I would- but it would be too violent for you