Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are watching such a thing, you are a psychopath yourself. No feeling for others at all. Nothing there.
That being said, you proved my point. They are growing at an alarming rate. Protect yourself. I'm moving into the country in a few years, but I will be heavily armed and lots of security. I am pretty armed in my suburb and have silent alarms on my home. It only gets worse from here.
Yes, there is definitely a desensitization in young people today. Resulting in lack of empathy.
The real question is who would want to see this? Find out who paid and keep a close eye on them.
Millions of people watch this kind of thing. It's certainly not any worse than "Faces of Death" which was extremely popular, selling millions of copies, and that was 20 years ago. This isn't new.
Why is the constitution being discussed here? I never said the YouTuber had broken any laws. I said states should pass laws to restrict things like autopsy reports, and pictures of victims. I already linked list of 9 states that have this on the books already. The constitution does not prohibit states from passing laws to restrict access to these documents.
I don't want to turn this thread into a POC thread. I'm glad Patrion has suspended the YouTubers account that is well within their rights as a private company.
If you want autopsy REPORTS restricted. Then absolutely not.
Might as well allow the government to suppress anything and everything.
Almost anything can be learned from Youtube. I met a fellow that that did a frame off restoration of a classic car. He said he went to Youtube University and spent hundreds of hours watching and learning how to do everything from rebuilding the engine to stitching the upholstery on Youtube.
Who is to say that some or even most watching an autopsy video are not med students, or nurses, or paramedics learning or improving their knowledge? At any given time there are about 22,000 med students enrolled in the US. Not everyone is a perv or demented.
Almost anything can be learned from Youtube. I met a fellow that that did a frame off restoration of a classic car. He said he went to Youtube University and spent hundreds of hours watching and learning how to do everything from rebuilding the engine to stitching the upholstery on Youtube.
Who is to say that some or even most watching an autopsy video are not med students, or nurses, or paramedics learning or improving their knowledge? At any given time there are about 22,000 med students enrolled in the US. Not everyone is a perv or demented.
Many things can be learned from Youtube. Not all of them accurate. Even they have their limits. See Alex Jones.
But.. yes. You are correct. And.. Details of crimes, murders, cases.. That information cannot and should not be restricted, though.. I can understand holding back a few details that only the person who committed the crime would know if it's unsolved.. As I've mentioned. I'd be TOTALLY against not releasing autopsy reports. The photos.. Yeah, I can get behind that. I mean.. you go out looking, you can find the 'crime scene' photos of Chris Farley. let me advise you.. Don't.
There have been and will continue to be a goodly number of cases that are solved by amateur sleuths. Or, just people who see something and look into it. Trust me. I know. I solved a missing persons case from that. Just happened to stumble across it, looked around a bit and found her. Missing 20+ years, right under their noses.
Like anything, though.. There can be a dark side to it. Wasn't some dummy accusing an innocent person in the murders of the college students a few months ago?
In this case, though.. The benefits outweigh the negatives. The main benefit being not to allow the government to be secretive.
So if People Magazine wanted to print those photos on the cover of their magazine they could do it? I think not. There are standards that news organizations follow. And there should be standards on social media.
Youtube has rules. If you want to watch an R rated free movie it will be edited to cut the cuss words and nude scenes out. A Youtube creator doing fashion videos has to be careful not to wear anything too sheer or otherwise exposing.
So there absolutely are standards in place. On Facebook you'll get put into Facebook jail or even banned for using certain words.
That Patreon content creator stepped over the line. She exploited a murdered child's dead body for money.
That ain't going to fly.
Probably. The gray area would really only be in commercial use. Time Magazine isn't paying royalties to the "Person of the Year" to use their likeness on the magazine covers in most cases. If a person is enough of a celebrity to be person of the year they lose out on that expectation of privacy. They're a celebrity and people talk about celebrities. A magazine might seem some boost in sales from having their mug on the cover but they're also a celebrity. But that doesn't mean you can just use a celebrity's likeness to sell a product. So they probably could put autopsy photos on the cover. They wouldn't, one of those just because you can doesn't mean you should things, but they probably could.
Cuss words and nudity are both fine on YouTube. The thing, particularly with nudity, is YouTube does not permit material that in their view is designed to be sexually gratifying. Documentary on African tribes? Nudity is fine. Classical art that shows nudity? Nudity is fine (Statue of David). The sexxy yoga channel? Nip slips are not tolerated. Sexxy yoga channel is already on thin ice so it better not be "accidently" having any slips.
Almost anything can be learned from Youtube. I met a fellow that that did a frame off restoration of a classic car. He said he went to Youtube University and spent hundreds of hours watching and learning how to do everything from rebuilding the engine to stitching the upholstery on Youtube.
Who is to say that some or even most watching an autopsy video are not med students, or nurses, or paramedics learning or improving their knowledge? At any given time there are about 22,000 med students enrolled in the US. Not everyone is a perv or demented.
There was no video, they were photos. There is nothing to learn from looking at photos of a dead body.
Almost anything can be learned from Youtube. I met a fellow that that did a frame off restoration of a classic car. He said he went to Youtube University and spent hundreds of hours watching and learning how to do everything from rebuilding the engine to stitching the upholstery on Youtube.
Who is to say that some or even most watching an autopsy video are not med students, or nurses, or paramedics learning or improving their knowledge? At any given time there are about 22,000 med students enrolled in the US. Not everyone is a perv or demented.
There are lot of surgeries, and medical related stuff on YouTube. They don't identify the patient plus I'm 100% sure the patient agreed to the video recording in writing before it was done.
I'm sure you can find an autopsy of someone on YouTube the identity of the person will be protected. The body is likely was donated to science. Not related to a murder trial where family would be negatively impacted. Most bodies that show up at the medical examiner's office where they can't locate any family will be donated for medical science. How I know this because recent friend passed, they told me if I didn't have him picked up by a funeral home that is where he would end up.
Millions of people watch this kind of thing. It's certainly not any worse than "Faces of Death" which was extremely popular, selling millions of copies, and that was 20 years ago. This isn't new.
45 years ago to be exact.
Which is exactly what this thread is about. This is disgusting, so I don't want you to see it. Well guess what? I find religion to be disgusting. Can I ban it? I know it's protected by the First Amendment. But so is freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but many here seem to have no problem cutting that part out of the Constitution. So I say ban religion too. Religion has done a hell of a lot more damage to the world, then people looking at autopsy photos has.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
