Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gore Site Operator Arrested For Posting Video of Murder

Soulskill posted 1 year,5 days | from the not-al-gore dept.

Canada 289

theshowmecanuck writes "According to the Montreal Gazette, 'The owner and operator of a well-known 'real gore' website is charged with corrupting morals for posting a video allegedly depicting the murder of student Jun Lin by Luka Magnotta. Magnotta, 30, is currently in custody charged with first-degree murder in the death of the 33-year-old Chinese international student, who was killed in Montreal in May 2012. The victim's severed limbs were then mailed to political parties and elementary schools, and his torso found inside a discarded suitcase.' A news interview with the detective in charge of the case, airing on CTV as I type this, says he believes the web site hosts a lot of racist content and unimaginable violence. You should note that Canada has less free speech than in America (we have 'hate crime laws'), but there will likely be some arguments in this vein. The charge against the operator is quite rare and no-one so far remembers it ever being used before."

cancel ×

289 comments

Severed limbs mailed to political parties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312529)

+1 appropriate.

Re:Severed limbs mailed to political parties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312559)

It's a solid second choice, since the mailman won't deliver horse heads to their beds.

Re:Severed limbs mailed to political parties? (1)

xevioso (598654) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313125)

I never really understood this in the movie. No blood on the ground...they took great care in placing it there in the bed with no obvious clues...I would have thought at least there would have been a foul smell, but...oh well, that's movie magic for ya.

Things like this... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312555)

Make me glad the NSA spys on everyone.

Someone should be keeping tabs on nutbags like this.

Now if only they'd get off their fat lazy goverment asses and do something about all the sick stuff they know about...

Re:Things like this... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312625)

Make me glad the NSA spys on everyone.

Someone should be keeping tabs on nutbags like this.

What happens when a nutbag joins the NSA?

Re:Things like this... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312783)

He steals stuff and naively believes he's doing good?

Re:Things like this... (2)

bonehead (6382) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313357)

What happens when a nutbag joins the NSA?

Um, business as usual?

Re:Things like this... (1, Troll)

Xicor (2738029) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312635)

what is wrong with you? this would be a clear violation of the site owner's rights of freedom of speech in the US. the site owner didnt commit any crimes, he simply uploaded a video of it to his own site, which is protected under free speech. if you think that the NSA should be spying on people and arresting them for nonconformity... there is something seriously wrong with you. none of us want a conformity state... we want to be able to do whatever we want as long as they are protected under our bill of rights.

Re:Things like this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312689)

Whoosh...

Re:Things like this... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312725)

Murder as free speech.
America really has something funny in its water supply.

Re:Things like this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312755)

The website operator didn't commit the murder. Posting the video was the "free speech". Abhorent, but still free speech (in the US). As this was in Canada, totally different rules apply.

Re:Things like this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312803)

What speech? Did he add a witty title or something. The video isn't his speech any more than me posting a torrent is my free speech. It is just copying some bits.

Re:Things like this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312839)

In the land of the free even donating money is considered "free speech", go figure.

Re:Things like this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313065)

Making political videos and publications costs money you know.

Re:Things like this... (5, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312751)

Key point, though, this isn't in the US, and the laws in Canada don't work the same way. Canadians don't necessarily have the exact same values as Americans, and one of those values is that hate speech is criminal rather than protected. These laws (and related ones) are occasionally controversial, but not nearly to the extent they would be in the US.

Re:Things like this... (2)

studog-slashdot (771604) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312983)

Actually, hate speech is now protected. The exemption was repealed. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/27/hate-speech-no-longer-part-of-canadas-human-rights-act/ [nationalpost.com]

Re:Things like this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313127)

But it's still a crime to disseminate hate. It just goes to court vs human rights tribunal.

Re:Things like this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313133)

Hate speech is still illegal in Canada. The portion pertaining to hate speech in the human rights act was repealed, but there are still laws against hate speech in the criminal code which the conservative government has yet to get to.

Re:Things like this... (1)

Xicor (2738029) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313267)

yea but the guy i was replying to was talking about the NSA... which is an american organization. hes implying that the NSA is doing the right thing in keeping tabs on US citizens as long as ppl like the guy in the article are removed from society.

Re:Things like this... (5, Insightful)

GumphMaster (772693) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313235)

what is wrong with you? this would be a clear violation of the site owner's rights of freedom of speech in the US. the site owner didnt commit any crimes, he simply uploaded a video of it to his own site, which is protected under free speech.

So the United States has no laws prohibiting the posting of child porn or bestiality images? After all, the web site operator didn't rape the child, bugger the sheep, etc. he or she is simply exercising "free speech." Nonetheless, he or she is still accountable to the law for disseminating the child porn because it encourages the producers. Posting a murder video might be notionally legal in the US under purported "freedom of speech" but that does not remove the possibility that the law would take interest.

Re:Things like this... (1)

Xicor (2738029) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313315)

i dont really like getting into political arguments, however... bestiality porn is NOT against the law in the US. child porn IS because hosting the site creates a larger demand for child porn, which hurts more children. while i do agree that HOSTING child porn should be covered under the free speech laws, i can also see why that would be a bad idea. that being said, there have been some recent political discussions/lawmaking that i dont agree with. (like the issue of lolicon anime porn). in this case, there are no children harmed, so i think it is ridiculous to go after ppl hosting or creating these as child pornographers. the problem here is that our laws are based on sociopolitical morals and the morals of the bible(the latter should be tossed out because of separation of church and state). morals in general have no place in laws. laws should be specifically designed to keep social order and keep ppl from being harmed. victimless crimes should not be crimes at all. in the case of real child porn, there is harm, however in the case of anime or even prostitution, there are no victims, therefore it shouldnt be punishable by law.

Re:Things like this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312667)

If the NSA's spying is useful why did this happen?

Canada (-1, Troll)

Corona Normal (2977485) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312563)

Why does this useless website post canadian news?

Re:Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312777)

Why does this useless person post replies to stories they aren't interested in?

Mob rule (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312575)

This kind of thing should be handled through social ostracism, not laws. Politicians leading mobs to silence people is nothing honorable.

Re:Mob rule (2)

DM9290 (797337) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312719)

How is it "mob rule" when democratically elected representatives ban something years in advance, then an independant law enforcement agency takes someone to be tried before an independant judiciary for violating it?

Your argument can be equally applied to the enforcement of any law whatsoever as being "mob rule".

the law might be an infringement of the Charter of Rights and could even be overturned by the Supreme Court, but it isn't going to be influenced by the size of mob that shows up at anybody's doorstep, or what any politician wants to say about it.

Re:Mob rule (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313237)

How is it "mob rule" when democratically elected representatives ban black people riding at the front of the bus years in advance, then an independent law enforcement agency takes someone to be tried before an independent judiciary for violating it?

How is it "mob rule" when democratically elected representatives ban black people from riding at the front of the bus years in advance, then an independent law enforcement agency takes someone to be tried before an independent judiciary for violating it?

How is it "mob rule" when democratically elected representatives ban alcohol years in advance, then an independent law enforcement agency takes someone to be tried before an independent judiciary for violating it?

etc

Your argument can be equally applied to the enforcement of any law whatsoever as being "mob rule".

That's because most laws banning things are.. Mob rule is great, as long as you're part of the mob..

Re:Mob rule (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312729)

This kind of thing should be handled through social ostracism, not laws. Politicians leading mobs to silence people is nothing honorable.

So it should be handled by mob rule (social ostracism), just not by mob rule (laws). So long as it's YOUR mob, you're okay with it. Just don't anyone form or join a mob against YOU, and then it's honorable and moral. Got it.

Re:Mob rule (3, Interesting)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312757)

Re:Mob rule (0)

Tailhook (98486) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312995)

You know, I have no love for Holder [reason.com] and all the other hate mongers and race baiters that have ginned up this Trayvon/Zimmerman case, but that particular story is not credible. As near as I can tell it originated from an Orlando Sentinel story [orlandosentinel.com] that supposedly quotes some pressure group representative who claims that during a teleconference some DOJ official solicited "tips" via an email address that isn't actually "active" yet. There is no recording of this call and no other corroboration that I can find. It has merely ricocheted around the right wing echo chamber with remarkable velocity.

There is more than enough abuse of power occurring in this matter that it isn't actually necessary to make stuff up.

Re:Mob rule (3, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313033)

Yeah, actually that email address is active and has been for several days. It was even publicized by the DOJ, almost right after the not-guilty verdict was read.

Re:Mob rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312811)

This kind of thing should be handled through social ostracism

Good plan. Let us extrapolate:

Headline: Father beats 'gore' site operator to death over child's murder video

Great. Everyone circling the drain.

Let it be your kid's murder they publish. Bet that 'worldview' of yours doesn't hold up long.

Political Parties' Names (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312585)

Sum Tin Wong
Wi Tu Lo
Ho Lee Fuk
Bang Ding Ow

Re:Political Parties' Names (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312673)

Thats the spirit! When you don't have the mental capacity or oral dexterity to pronounce something, make fun of it so you can feel better about yourself!

Summay is incorrect (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312619)

It was used against a special fx pro, for an over realistic gore site, but it failed : http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12/23/remy-couture_n_2355922.html

Re:Summay is incorrect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312915)

Read the article posted in the summary, and you'd see it's a different case.

Oh wait, this is slashdot, where one can't be bothered to inform themselves before posting.

Re:Summay is incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313157)

Get a brain and some reading comprehension, and see that GP isn't trying to claim it's the same case.

Re:Summay is incorrect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313049)

How did this get modded informative?

Mod parent down as off-topic. This is not even close to being the case in question.

Re:Summay is incorrect (5, Informative)

FrankSchwab (675585) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313117)

Because the GP is referring to "The charge against the operator is quite rare and no-one so far remembers it ever being used before" from TFSummary, and brings us notice of a similar case with the same charge. "Informative" is the correct mod in this case.

Re:Summay is incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313303)

Thank you ! At least someone know how to parse and interpret English in context ...

He probably thought he could get dispensation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312695)

After all, his boss invented the Internet.

And the torment of her family and loved ones? (5, Insightful)

bstarrfield (761726) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312713)

There are some things simply beyond the pale in any decent society. Entertaining people through showing a grisly, cruel murder can do nothing but harm the family, friends, and love ones of the victim. It has absolutely no political, educational, moral effect, nor any deterrent to any crime. It has no value whatsoever to shock and delight those deranged enough to view a heinous act.

The Framers had clear reasons for promoting freedom of speech, primarily to serve the political health of the nation by fostering free debate. And yes, they came from a society that still had public executions, some of which were (in England at least) just as brutal as this crime as more. But they did not create freedom of speech to promote sheer depravity. Laws exist in the context of their society, even what we consider natural law, and there are some things that a society has every damn right to ban - child pornography, and yes, showing a murder for fun.

What must be going through the minds of this poor woman's parents? Is that pain worth a shock to an increasingly cynical population? This was beyond the pale, and does corrupt public morals by desensitizing people to murder. The owner of the site deserves these charges.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312763)

psst. Lin Jun was a man.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (3, Informative)

mirix (1649853) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312769)

The victim was a guy, for what it's worth.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312787)

Are you joking or do you seriously not know this is regarding the murder of a male? Do you just comment for fun to see yourself type?

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (2, Interesting)

broken_chaos (1188549) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312869)

The comment has no less validity if you remove the letters "wo" from the last paragraph. There is no legitimate reason to post something like this. It's disgusting and unnecessary. Anyone who has a desire to look at it is the sort of person who should seek professional help.

I'm Canadian, not a huge fan of the current political climate in Canada, but I can't get outraged over this. Though I will say the guy who's been arrested is a bit of an idiot for saying that Canada is a 'police state' for having confiscated computer equipment directly related to what he's been charged with... Call it a 'police state' for how the G20 was handled, not because you went and got yourself arrested for doing something that is quite likely illegal and definitely disgusting.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (3, Interesting)

Motard (1553251) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312917)

It's interesting that the first three replies to this post zoomed in on a one word factual error that isn't really of any consequence with regard to the rest of the three paragraph comment. It's like they think they're going for the win.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313297)

There is no legitimate reason to post something like this. It's disgusting and unnecessary.

It might be necessary when we get a bunch of what the Dutch call "goat-wool sock" types that will claim that Magnotta is "actually a victim himself" to visualize what we're actually talking about. The down-playing usually starts immediately after the news breaks. But when Magnotta is locked away for life there's indeed no reason to distribute the video.

If on the other hand, like the Greyhound Bus Beheader and Cannibal [winnipegsun.com] Vincent Lee will, Magnotta gets to go hang out at the beach, it may be time to send a reminder of what's going on.

Yes, people can redeem themselves. But when things DO go wrong, for some reason no psychiatrist or parole board is ever held to account or considered accessories to the crime.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (3, Insightful)

Ardyvee (2447206) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313361)

To be honest, while I wouldn't want to see whatever it is that was posted (though I might so I am able to see just where it is regarding to what I allow myself to watch, and to be able to have better opinions), I think that there may be legitimate reasons to post something like this. People may want to expose themselves to this kind of content so that they know just what kind of thing humanity is capable. They might be interested in it as a source of ideas for a book, a movie or a TV series (you know, there is a whole genre around criminals and what they do). Or simply to raise awareness to those that want to listen.*

To be honest, while there are things I wouldn't mind not seeing again and not thinking "somewhere this exists", I believe in freedom of speech. If I were to vote, I would vote against banning such content (unless given a very damn good reason, besides people not liking it). And on the other hand it is because some content exist that I know some of my limits -- what I'm capable of watching and enjoying and what I decide I would rather simply close.

Now, I don't know what the parents may be thinking. Probably something along the lines of "why don't you respect the memory of my child" or something (assuming of course they are against this, which I don't know). But I have no idea how showing the video of the murder is a disrespect if it is what happened and in no way altered. Because that's what happened. Unless they are asking to respect what they want to remember of their child (which doesn't include getting killed), in which case I will disagree with them and disregard their request.

*I'll admit I can't really come up with any reason somebody might want to watch it, or share it (assuming what I've read is accurate). What I came up with sounds shitty to me, too. But I reject "disgusting and unnecessary" or damaging to the family as valid reason to BAN the sharing of such content. If individuals want to take into account those reasons, they are free to do so. If I'm ever found in that position, I'll then face the question whether or not I care enough about the family of the victim and whether or not I'm okay with sharing it with others (I would not deny access to those that explicitly asked and I deemed as valid [so no 12 year old kids asking for it will get it, I'm not that crazy]). Or at least I expect to be able to make that decision instead of being forced by law to act a certain way.

This all sounds familiar (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312805)

The idea that people shouldn't be entertained by violence is the same argument that's been used to ban video games, movies, etc. Think about ALL of the implications what you're saying here -- are you sure this is really the road you want to go down?

Re:This all sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312863)

Actually, it's not an issue of entertainment, but an issue of production. If you want to create a violent video game, you code it. If you want to create child pornography, you find individuals.

They are not the same.

Re:This all sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312873)

Sure, it's an argument that's been used.

It does not, however address the fundamental difference between an honest-to-god snuff video and a video game in which some fictional characters bleed fictional blood in a fictional world, with absolutely no living organisms being harmed by any of it.

If you can't see a difference between a real video of a real murder and CoD, perhaps you should think of the implications of what you're saying a little more.

Re:This all sounds familiar (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312937)

It is not a snuff film if it was not created with the intent to earn money or at least entertain. If the intent of recording the film does not count towards the definition of a snuff film, then "Faces of Death" would be considered a snuff film since some of the scenes are actual authentic footage of people dying.

Re:This all sounds familiar (0)

Motard (1553251) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313253)

Yes, keep telling yourself that.

Re:This all sounds familiar (1)

Valdrax (32670) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312961)

I think there's a difference between created fiction and voyeurism of real human suffering.

Yeah, I gotta put snuff in the same box as child porn. Repulsive when created by the pen and paper and worthy of social ostracism; utterly indefensible when involving real acts occurring to real people and worthy of prison time.

Re:This all sounds familiar (1)

idji (984038) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313301)

There is a difference between being entertained by acted violence, and being entertained by the murder of a human. Allowing things like child pornography and "real gore" would be creating and supplying a market, hence creating demand of "product", which leads to victimization of humans - and that is abhorrent. We ban the ivory trade to make no market for killing elephants and we ban child pornography to provide no incentive for victimizing children. You can rightly claim that there is no known correlation between video game violence and murdering people, but there IS a direct correlation between child pornography and child abuse (the first CANNOT exist without the other). The correlation is not necessary there between "real gore" and "murder", and " prostitution" and "human trafficking", but is highly likely there as the first can create the second.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (3, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312841)

[snip]

The Framers had clear reasons for promoting freedom of speech...

[snip]

Canada. Not USA. Canada.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312857)

It has no value whatsoever to shock and delight those deranged enough to view a heinous act.
...
But they did not create freedom of speech to promote sheer depravity.
...
showing a murder for fun.

You seem to imply a certain intent. Can you prove it?

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (1)

Motard (1553251) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313089)

The burden of proof required on your typical internet message board, much less Slashdot, is pretty low. But we can look at the tape in this case....

From the TFA...

Marek told the Ottawa Citizen he believed “people need to know what really is going on in their neighbourhoods,” saying: “They could easily walk upon a gruesome accident scene themselves and whom will they blame for being exposed to it then?”

Yes, of course, this is a public service. If I were to take a walk and came across a dismembered body, I'd immediately ask why I wasn't informed of this sort of thing - and why I wasn't properly prepared for being exposed to this type of stuff. Goddammit, why didn't somebody post this shit to the internet so I'd be prepared for this sort of thing!

Or, he could be a sick fuck in it for the lulz.

I dunno.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (3, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313411)

The burden of proof required on your typical internet message board, much less Slashdot, is pretty low.

You seem to assume a lot. It is up to the readers (including myself) to establish their own threshold for the level of proof.

Or, he could be a sick fuck in it for the lulz.

I dunno.

Even assuming the above is correct:
* did this sick fuck commit murders to fuel his site?
* does anyone have the right to condemn a person on the "potential misuse of the information"?
* even accepting morals into equation (who's morals?)... anyway: should a person be condemned because the society is "too weak in the moral sense"? I mean, what's the conceptual difference between this and prosecuting Galileo because he kept on publicly saying the Earth is moving and endangering the "good faith" of the society of his time?

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (2, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312923)

What must be going through the minds of this poor woman's parents? Is that pain worth a shock to an increasingly cynical population? This was beyond the pale, and does corrupt public morals by desensitizing people to murder. The owner of the site deserves these charges.

See the problem here is others get to use the very same words to justify banning of a great number of tasteless things such as horror flicks, gratuitious violence in every movie worth seeing and public service announcements consisting of little kids taking great joy in dismembering a certain purple dinosaur.

It always comes down to your personally shocked by obscene behavior of others therefore you feeling justified in taking that logical leap therefore such behavior ought to be illegal.

I personally would feel better if rotton.com and every fucked up chick who digs that shit where fed to sharks... except the price of freedom is such that I must tolerate all manner of distasteful assholes in this country. When you take tolerance away the cure is worse than the disease. There are plenty of countries which enforce decency and respect thru state sanctioned violence you could move to if you felt so compelled.

This is very different from a Horror Film (1)

sirwired (27582) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313231)

We know, when watching a horror film, that real people did not die to make the movie. Showing the death of a real person as "entertainment" is a different matter entirely.

Does it cross the line? I don't know. It would make an interesting test case; if it was porn instead, it would seem to be over the line established in the Miller test.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (1)

msobkow (48369) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313367)

Your argument holds true for a special effects fest movie or video.

This was neither.

It was video of the aftermath of an actual, honest to God someone died MURDER.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (2)

msobkow (48369) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313375)

The "horror" is that the sick and twisted website operator thought the footage "entertaining" and tried to make a profit off it by posting it.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (2, Interesting)

elucido (870205) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312929)

There are some things simply beyond the pale in any decent society. Entertaining people through showing a grisly, cruel murder can do nothing but harm the family, friends, and love ones of the victim. It has absolutely no political, educational, moral effect, nor any deterrent to any crime. It has no value whatsoever to shock and delight those deranged enough to view a heinous act.

The Framers had clear reasons for promoting freedom of speech, primarily to serve the political health of the nation by fostering free debate. And yes, they came from a society that still had public executions, some of which were (in England at least) just as brutal as this crime as more. But they did not create freedom of speech to promote sheer depravity. Laws exist in the context of their society, even what we consider natural law, and there are some things that a society has every damn right to ban - child pornography, and yes, showing a murder for fun.

What must be going through the minds of this poor woman's parents? Is that pain worth a shock to an increasingly cynical population? This was beyond the pale, and does corrupt public morals by desensitizing people to murder. The owner of the site deserves these charges.

Fuck censorshp. A lot of stuff on the Internet can torment people for years. It's not like anything else gets deleted from the Internet.
This is about one group of people how another group of people can be allowed to think. If you don't like Gore then don't go to the site.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (1)

Valdrax (32670) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312969)

A lot of stuff on the Internet can torment people for years. It's not like anything else gets deleted from the Internet.

You say that like it justifies itself instead of the exact opposite.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (5, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313013)

But they did not create freedom of speech to promote sheer depravity.

And yet if you give governments the power to ban things because they are "depraved" suddenly everyone despised by the people in power are all depraved. Funny you mentioned banning child porn, it seems that every time some government comes up with a new child porn blocklist, people find examples of exactly this misplaced label of "depravity", so you can't claim this doesn't happen.

The founders gave the government limited powers for a reason. The governments of their time took every mile they could from every inch they could force their subjects to give, and the governments of our time are no different.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (1)

Motard (1553251) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313175)

Oh, how I wish I could send you back to the "government of their time" so you could truly appreciate the difference between what we have now and what they had then.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313243)

Reminds me of australia banning women from having small breasts.
Seriously. Canadian police wasn't doing shit about Magnota.
They could have arrested him before he did the murder for all the torture shit he was posting online.
Even when best gore told them hey this guy just posted a murder vid the police did nothing.

Now they just want to save face buy blaming this guy for exposing their uselessness.

Re:And the torment of her family and loved ones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313369)

Speak for yourself, for it is only for yourself that you can speak.

If you don't want to see it, then look the other way. I, however, want to see it, and it is not for my entertainment but for my edification.

Keep your squeamish and arrogant morals to yourself. Your personal experience is not a law of the universe.

Even in the USA, some "crime video" is contraband (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312747)

If a crime-scene video WOULD fall afoul of US obscenity laws if it were fictional/staged, AND it is not presented in a way that gives it free speech protection, it might also be deemed illegal because it is obscene.

Fortunately, the bar is quite low. This allows journalists to publish gruesome war-crimes photos or videos without fear of arrest, while outlawing similar-looking "staged" pictures and videos.

Child pornography is also illegal in the United States partly (but not exclusively) under the theory that such images are "crime-scene photos." I say "not exclusively" because such images created abroad, created before current laws were passed, or created in situations where no crime other than snapping the shutter occurs (e.g. self-photography, legal sex between two people allowed to have sex with each other but one or both is under 18, etc.) is still generally illegal to produce, share, or possess in the United States.

Al Gore? (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312771)

When I read the headline, the first thing I thought of was Al Gore.

Re:Al Gore? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312821)

When I read the headline, the first thing I thought of was Al Gore.

My first thoughts, but then I read TFA.

Re:Al Gore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313111)

Strangle enough, I read TFA, and then I thought of Al Gore

Re:Al Gore? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313007)

Maybe this guy was protesting about the carbon footprint of his victim, or the people he sent them to. That would bring it under AlGore's speeches, but not his deeds.

Re:Al Gore? (1)

Rod Beauvex (832040) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313129)

Glad I'm not the only one. :D

What about this case was so complicated (1)

Nutria (679911) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312775)

that it took more than a year to develop?

Re:What about this case was so complicated (1)

SolemnLord (775377) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313051)

that it took more than a year to develop?

A whole lot of things:
1. As the summary mentioned, the various parts of Jun Li were mailed to political parties and schools, which means that at least some time would have to be taken ensuring everything "matched"
2. At the same time, if I recall, there was another dismembered body (or just regular body) being found in the Montreal area, so the police had to determine whether or not that was tied to the other crime
3. Magnotta fled the country and was eventually caught in Germany (which is an interesting story [theglobeandmail.com] in and of itself).
4. Pre-trial hearing 5. Magnotta's been under psychiatric care while the courts decide whether or not he's fit for trial

That's some of the big reasons, off the top of my head.

Re:What about this case was so complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313053)

Magnotta is going in trial in the fall. Most likely the two Crown prosecution teams have been working together on their cases and the charge now reflects the state of evidence for the gore site prosecutor. Beyond that, a large amount of publicity in this case could have interfered with jury selection for the Magnotta case. I'm not a lawyer or privy to anything in this but those things spring to mind.

Singularly (1, Insightful)

Mikkeles (698461) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312797)

The only people here with corrupt morals are the police and the politicians who passed this law.

Re:Singularly (0, Troll)

broken_chaos (1188549) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312883)

What makes you believe that exploiting the murder of an individual by posting a video of it is anything less than immoral?

Re:Singularly (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313081)

What makes you believe that exploiting the murder of an individual by posting a video of it is anything less than immoral?

You are exploiting this murder when claiming moral high ground in this manner.

The conservative party is exploiting this murder to look though on crime while in fact they only care because they were personally targeted by the killer. eg: The killer sent body part to the party's office.

Go be a moralfag elsewhere, the very same law was abused last year again fiction that displayed 'morally corrupting' horror.

Re:Singularly (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313351)

Go back to 4chan, you are not wanted here.

Re:Singularly (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313205)

Agreed. While I certainly cannot say the gore site's operator's actions are as evil as those of the law makers here, they do imply some level of corrupt morals.

Re:Singularly (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313185)

And you.

Not appropriate?!? (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | 1 year,5 days | (#44312815)

I once lived near Canada and admired the view that anything related to an upcoming trial be kept out of the news. Where it's treated like entertainment or tantalizing marketing in the United States, it's good to see Canada believes the public should not be forming opinions based upon partial evidence or hearsay.

Looks to my untrained eye like the site operator was violating this ban, beyond simply poor taste.

Re:Not appropriate?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313189)

I once lived near Canada and admired the view that anything related to an upcoming trial be kept out of the news. Where it's treated like entertainment or tantalizing marketing in the United States, it's good to see Canada believes the public should not be forming opinions based upon partial evidence or hearsay.

Looks to my untrained eye like the site operator was violating this ban, beyond simply poor taste.

Not to readers: once the jury is sequestered most publication bans are lifted.

So before the trial publication is restricted to prevent contaminating the jury pool, and during the trial there are restrictions to prevent tainting the jury (they're allowed to go home). It's only during deliberations that most/all of the evidence can be broadcast and published.

There are some things that are not allowed even after: if the victim/s are 'children' (under 18), then their names and the names of the accused, cannot be published to protect the identities of the victims (so the even won't follow them around their entire lives).

this is a step up from video games (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44312885)

this is violence at a new level and should not be acceptable behavior. People can be traumatized from such a groosem event. Children among others may fear for their live may find carrying a gun might make them feel safter.

Re:this is a step up from video games (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313037)

this is violence at a new level and should not be acceptable behavior. People can be traumatized from such a groosem event. Children among others may fear for their live may find carrying a gun might make them feel safter.

If you're talking about the violence your post perpetrates upon the English language, then I agree.

No problem when the BBC or CBC show such content (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313029)

One rule for State sanctioned 'journalists', another for everyone else. Kids at school can be FORCED to watch films showing Nazi atrocities, because it is deemed helpful to the current nation of Israel, but the same schools would face prosecution if they attempted to show film footage of atrocities carried out daily by Israel against all they label as 'sub-Human' in places like Gaza.

Who is to judge when evidence from true crime scenes crosses the line? You will notice there is never a universal ban based on assessment of content. No, the bans are political based on the background of the 'victim' and the background of the 'aggressor'. Gore is fine if it encourages the viewer to support racist violence by Israel, or to cheer the wars waged by the UK and USA in Libya, Syria or Iraq.

Journalists working for Murdoch's rags in the USA and UK are the first to press for punishment and jail for any ordinary citizen in possession of the 'wrong' kinds of true crime videos. For instance, the UK and USA provided their terrorists currently destroying Syria with chemical weapons and the training to use them. But these terrorists have a nasty habit of shooting everything they do on cell phones, immediately providing proof of the true nature of the conflick in Syria. It is rather annoying for the warmonger Obama to have his plans thwarted when he promised to destroy the Syrian government (including all civil servants and their families) if the regime appeared to use chemical weapons in its defence (as the USA would do- why else do you think Obama has the biggest collection of chemical weapons on the planet?)

The USA, UK, Canada and Australia would love the sheeple to finally accept the concept of officially licensed 'journalists' so that the concept of citizen journalists could be exterminated once and for all. Unfortunately for the elites, English speaking nations have no tradition of state-sanctioned journalism (that the sheeple are supposed to be aware of anyway). The method in the English -speaking nations is to allow media giants to emerge that are owned/run by people belonging to the elite. Before the days of the Internet, this scheme worked brilliantly. The price of competing with the media giants was far too high, so citizen journalists could make only the smallest splash.

The (ex?-)nazi, George Soros, is at the forefront to outlaw all influential Internet opinions not directly under his or mainstream control. He directly funds attacks on all those who dare to oppose propaganda operations by the mainstream media, or his pseudo-alternative mock-left-wing sites. Soros funded political support for legislation in the UK that would force ALL 'journalistic' activity (save for websites that ONLY contain content from a single named individual- comments included) to be required to join an incredibly expensive 'insurance' scheme to ensure funds for libel actions.

George Soros is able to smirk and say "I haven't banned citizen journalism in the UK- I've just forced all journalists to be responsible- and if you can't afford to be responsible, that isn't my problem". In the UK, truth is NOT a defence against libel actions. UK courts, with the full backing of Soros, found a twitter that stated "why is McAlpine trending :)" to be libellous. The named politician was a famous supporter of convicted serial child rapist Graham Ovenden, and collected images made of the rape victims by the painter. But the truth is no defence in a UK libel court. McAlpine claimed his reputation had been damaged, and that was certainly true. Ovenden's intimate friendship with McAlpine and other senior members of the British establishment ensured that Ovenden's lifetime commitment to the worst forms of child abuse failed to gain any jail time, even when the court found him guilty of such sickening crimes.

Jimmy Savile's (one of the world's worst child abusers) friends, including the Prince of Wales (yes, that freak who would be King should the Queen die or abdicate, which is why she is determined to outlive Charles), ensured not one of the thousands of victims saw justice while Savile was still alive. Many citizen journalists tried to warn about Savile, but their voices were swamped by the BBC, as they sought to help him find new targets petty much up until the day he died. After death, senior figures at the BBC instigated a massive project to cover-up his activities, but obviously this fell to bits.

So George Soros, the BBC, and Murdoch's various scum employees will use their influence and access to politicians, pressure groups and the mainstream/mock-alternative media to demand that "something be done to prevent individuals on the Internet posting such disgusting material". The real game, as argued above, is to ensure that ONLY those the elite approves of gets to have any real influence over the sheeple.

How can free speech protect murder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313093)

It's very strange that as an outsider looking in the US commentators here seem to think that the damage caused by showing snuff is ok, yet the damage caused by two teenagers sexting is not.

As a nation you Americans are very strange.

Re:How can free speech protect murder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313265)

My brain hemispheres broke trying to parse your sentence. Thanks, asshole.

Re:How can free speech protect murder? (1)

Motard (1553251) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313337)

Huh?

Oh, wait... Now I I think I'm feeling you, Mr. AC Talibani.

Not free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313109)

The idea that posting grotesque, destructive and criminal behavior as entertainment should be protected as "free speech" is ridiculous. Notably, the "free speech" provision in the IS Constitution were meant to protect political discourse, and that's all. The unintended side effect of permitting essentially everything else is simple a result of sloppy execution, and the fact that "political" content is almost impossible to define.

You can argue as you wish about that should or should not be censored, but the free speech argument is pretty spurious with respect to the INTENT of the provisions and has significance only in purely legalistic terms.

Showing the video is a crime because it is theft (3, Interesting)

Comrade Ogilvy (1719488) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313179)

Here is a case where property rights gives us a reasonable answer. The victim never gave consent to be filmed during his murder, the film was made under duress. Those choosing to propagate the film can be presumed to recognize that. Yet they chose to attempt to profit by selling manifestly stolen property. Throw them in jail.

Would this be covered under obscenity laws? (3, Interesting)

sirwired (27582) | 1 year,5 days | (#44313193)

If this were to occur in the US, would a prosecution under obscenity laws be legal?

The bar is high, but compared with other things subject to the law, (i.e. the "Miller" test applied to pornography) this would seem to cross it.

The law as it as written (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313213)

Just for reference purposes here is the letter of the law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-75.html#docCont

Maybe it's because this law is very vague and open to interpretation that it hasn't been used much.

Posting gore and violence and criminal acts in print or online for the purpose of added traffic is IMnsHO immoral. IMnsHO publishing a (theoretically) a gory snuff film with dismemberment and cannibalism justifies a charge.

The prosecution will have prove to a judge that a: the publisher did not post this stuff for the public good, and/or b: he didn't pull it down after the public good was realized.

IANAL .. but I am a canuck (usually right winged though, except for today).

Thanks a lot Canada. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,5 days | (#44313217)

As soon as the video was uploaded they (bestgore users) notified the police that they thought it was magnota.
Police in Canada didn't do shit and resulted in a manhunt.
Now they are blaming this guy for some BS.

Fuck you Canada.
Fuck you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...