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.
Did you know that NZ ISPs started blocking dissenter, bitchute, 8chan, and other sites that aren't "censorship compliant"? All in an effort to cover up this one video. All this happened under the guise of that very same excuse you just gave us.
Good for them. It needed to be censored. And you can roll your eyes all your want. I don't see this as leading to some sort of First Amendment abuse. Sheesh. It's a massacre tape. The country that it happened in has the right to make sure it's not circulated. So you don't have a problem with child abuse or assault videos being shared on the internet? And if you say no, that tells me plenty.
Good for them. It needed to be censored. And you can roll your eyes all your want. I don't see this as leading to some sort of First Amendment abuse. Sheesh. It's a massacre tape. The country that it happened in has the right to make sure it's not circulated.
Fascinating that you completely miss that this is what the killer really wanted. A huge crackdown on law abiding citizens and their rights to privacy & free speech by law enforcement and the government.
I don't see the issue, as it involves very serious crime - is anyone going to argue that footage of a baby being raped, should be allowed to be distributed in the name of freedom?
Live streaming these shootings seems like a possible revenge tactic for all the live stream video and death porn video that groups like ISIS an Al Queda have put out over the years of them beheading prisoners. Maybe "revenge" is the wrong word, but it seems a likely motive. Sheesh the internet is as much a curse as a blessing.
It gives all the sickos out there a way for them to share their depravities. That there's scores of people out there who actually want to watch it rather scares me.
All terrorists crave attention and personal fame. It's how they become famous.
Denying them that attention makes the terrorism pointless, especially when the victims become famous while they remain nameless and faceless.
That's why the American news has cut way back on giving out info on the mass shooters lately. New Zealand is a much smaller country with a population that is more homogenous than ours, so they are making this shooter anonymity mandatory because that's how the people there want it to be.
It's basically "Don't encourage this violence by giving the killers what they want. If you do, there are penalties."
So, you hide behind some false sense of security to endorse censorship?
And this is exactly why I am beginning to think this whole thing is nothing more than another planned attack by the elite who are trying to use fear to get the public to give up their freedoms of speech and defense.
So, you hide behind some false sense of security to endorse censorship?
And this is exactly why I am beginning to think this whole thing is nothing more than another planned attack by the elite who are trying to use fear to get the public to give up their freedoms of speech and defense.
When it's a massacre like this was, yes, that would be criteria enough in my view. There's no good reason to have something like this out there.
Welp, we had our short time together, but now back to disagreement.
Who gets to decide what is "too much"? Whose criteria are we using?
People who view that video do so for a variety of reasons. Some are curious, some are sick, some see too much before realizing they don't want to see it, etc.
I started watching because someone said you could "hear" shots, not that you would see anything. When I saw things, I kept watching. The reason I kept watching was a mix of curiosity, and I long ago accepted that not everything in this world is good.
I also have to state that after the Nick Berg video years ago, not much phases me now. That's not to say "I don't care" because I do, I was yelling at this pos on my screen - like people do at their tv - to stop. Obviously I know he couldn't hear me, but that was my reaction. What I mean is that seeing the vile and horrific things that humans do to others is out there, easily found, and it crashes and burns all naivety that some might have about the world being a super fun, busting with happy unicorns, safe place. It's not.
And with that knowledge, you make wiser decisions, and you don't find yourself camping in some remote area with just your friend before someone comes in and beheads you, or makes you disappear.
I don't blame any victim for anything that happened to them, but I do realize that we have a whole lot of very naive people in this world, who simply do not comprehend the level of evil that exists in this world. You could see that in this video not just that he shot people, but that he did it so coldly.
You mentioned in another post that with that helmet cam, it was like watching a FPS in a video game. He was the first person shooter, and we were watching. How he acted was exactly the same - like they were just characters in a video game, not real people. You could see that in the video when he was leaving to go back to his car and how icily cold he took out that girl - even after she was pleading for help after he shot her the first time.
That shows you some serious evil - he did not view these people as actual people - and people can say that they know there are those types out there, but I don't think a lot of them actually understand, really, what that means.
You may be smart enough to know, I might, some others might, but I've known some people who are unbelievably unaware of a lot that goes on in this world - they don't have a clue. And ignorance may be bliss, but ignorance also gets you killed.
I don't see the issue, as it involves very serious crime - is anyone going to argue that footage of a baby being raped, should be allowed to be distributed in the name of freedom?
This was a shooting video, not a rape video.
Do you agree with putting someone in jail for years for having a copy of a video on his PC?
Welp, we had our short time together, but now back to disagreement.
Who gets to decide what is "too much"? Whose criteria are we using?
People who view that video do so for a variety of reasons. Some are curious, some are sick, some see too much before realizing they don't want to see it, etc.
I started watching because someone said you could "hear" shots, not that you would see anything. When I saw things, I kept watching. The reason I kept watching was a mix of curiosity, and I long ago accepted that not everything in this world is good.
I also have to state that after the Nick Berg video years ago, not much phases me now. That's not to say "I don't care" because I do, I was yelling at this pos on my screen - like people do at their tv - to stop. Obviously I know he couldn't hear me, but that was my reaction. What I mean is that seeing the vile and horrific things that humans do to others is out there, easily found, and it crashes and burns all naivety that some might have about the world being a super fun, busting with happy unicorns, safe place. It's not.
And with that knowledge, you make wiser decisions, and you don't find yourself camping in some remote area with just your friend before someone comes in and beheads you, or makes you disappear.
I don't blame any victim for anything that happened to them, but I do realize that we have a whole lot of very naive people in this world, who simply do not comprehend the level of evil that exists in this world. You could see that in this video not just that he shot people, but that he did it so coldly.
You mentioned in another post that with that helmet cam, it was like watching a FPS in a video game. He was the first person shooter, and we were watching. How he acted was exactly the same - like they were just characters in a video game, not real people. You could see that in the video when he was leaving to go back to his car and how icily cold he took out that girl - even after she was pleading for help after he shot her the first time.
That shows you some serious evil - he did not view these people as actual people - and people can say that they know there are those types out there, but I don't think a lot of them actually understand, really, what that means.
You may be smart enough to know, I might, some others might, but I've known some people who are unbelievably unaware of a lot that goes on in this world - they don't have a clue. And ignorance may be bliss, but ignorance also gets you killed.
I don't think any of this has to do with naivete. I don't have to see an atrocity to believe they can happen. I think most of us know that evil has no bounds, but we don't have to watch the proof of it. I'm really glad this video has been removed.
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.
