A discussion about controversial videos on the interweb.

[Nacho]

Here's the grey area: The rape is a crime. Video recording it isn't a crime. Publishing it on the internet is a crime. (Just to note, video-taping it is stupid since it can be introduced as evidence in a court trial for the actual rape).

Not sure about this Daniel... Video recording a crime (in this way, voluntarilly, I mean) and doing nothing about it (tell the rapists to stop, or call the police, for example) is a crime in my country, since you are denying help (I assume that the "raped" asked for help, or that he shows enough disturbing to being considered as in need of help, no?)

In this special case (if the video is how I imagine it...) you are not being just a witness of a crime (If you record a crime accidentally, sometimes you can be excused to act, if it' s prooven that there is a primal fear acting on you that disables you to act, for example, if you think that the criminal has seen you and could threaten you...), but also you are a collaborator, you knew the rape was going to happen, and you picked up a camera to participate in the exploitation, summing up to the act of rape, the humilliation of being recorded, so, double crime for you.

Makes sense?

[Raggit]

I think you're right DG, about the issues being confused here. 

I did try, however, to separate them in the original post.  Perhaps some did not understand, or read the post thoroughly.

For clarity:

1. The video I posted is a TV news segment ABOUT the kid being teabagged.  It, of course, does NOT show the actual event itself, nor is there evidence it was taped. 

I was not asking for opinions ON the video, but rather the way it is presented as a "Classic" under the humor section, thus bringing in a discussion about innocent victims being center stage on the funny sites, even in the most extreme of circumstances.

2.  Towards the bottom of my post I asked, "What about the myriad of other videos on the entertainment sites..."

I hoped this would help separate the discussion.  But all-in-all, I feel that everything has been relevant so far. 

[2ma2]

But Nacho, is it really illegal to refuse help to someone in distress in Spain?

[Nacho]

I am not a lawyer, so, I will try to explain what I believe, considering my not very deep knowleadge in that issue, 2ma2...

It is illegal to be witness of an accident and don't do all the necessary to help (Medical assistance if you are able to, call the ambulance, police...) If you are a doctor and you are prooved to leave the place, you'll even be in serious problems.

I am not sure about if it' s illegal to see a crime and doing nothing... if it envolves human suffering I think it is, as it' s denial of assistence. If you see someone selling drugs, or stealing a wallet, I am not sure... Maybe it is, but no police is going to arrest you for not running to the next police station if you' ve seen someone selling weed...

I am 99% sure about the video issue... Because the "camera man" was there, and was able to do something... One other thing recording crimes accidentally, or without possibility to make anything.

Anyway, if you see that a man is raping the girl in the building in front you live in, and you are bastard enough to sit and take a look in spite of calling the cops, there is like 0.0001 % possibilities to be accussed of something, as the possibilities of someone testifying you were able to do something and you didn' t are minimal. If you are silly enough to record it and putting it in the internet, well... You might have problems if the police finds you.

So, hope it's clear. Yeah, in most of the cases it is illegal to refuse to help people. Have in mind that our code does not ask you to become a hero. You won' t go to jail for not crossing a flooding river to save a girl trapped in a car, without knowing swimming. Doing something is preciselly that, doing something (Call the outhorities, or leave the place looking for a rope to save the girl...)

Is it different in some other countries?

[DGMacphee]

Here's the grey area: The rape is a crime. Video recording it isn't a crime. Publishing it on the internet is a crime. (Just to note, video-taping it is stupid since it can be introduced as evidence in a court trial for the actual rape).

Not sure about this Daniel... Video recording a crime (in this way, voluntarilly, I mean) and doing nothing about it (tell the rapists to stop, or call the police, for example) is a crime in my country, since you are denying help (I assume that the "raped" asked for help, or that he shows enough disturbing to being considered as in need of help, no?)

In this special case (if the video is how I imagine it...) you are not being just a witness of a crime (If you record a crime accidentally, sometimes you can be excused to act, if it' s prooven that there is a primal fear acting on you that disables you to act, for example, if you think that the criminal has seen you and could threaten you...), but also you are a collaborator, you knew the rape was going to happen, and you picked up a camera to participate in the exploitation, summing up to the act of rape, the humilliation of being recorded, so, double crime for you.

Makes sense?

No, no, you've misunderstood my point. What you're describing has nothing to do with the actual videotaping of the crime. What you describe is the same thing as watching a crime and doing nothing about it. It's a way of condoning a crime and it's known as "being an accomplice" to rape. (Keep in mind, I know very little about this, since I'm not a lawyer. Just a journalist and have studied media law).

What you're talking about is very different to what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is the act of videotaping without consent.

I re-chekced my media law. It's allowable here in Queensland to use a recording device to record without consent. Likewise, in Victoria and Western Australia. In NSW, it's illegal to do so. The law is different in the various states of my country.

And I don't know how it is for other countries and their states. I do know a lot of states in the US allow people to record without consent.

But since the video Timosity was talking about was recorded in Victoria, it's not illegal to record such a video. However, it is illegal to publish it since the victim obviously wouldn't give her consent. The only way you could allow the publication of such is if the content meets certain criteria, such as if it's in the public's interest (which it isn't).

Like I said, though, this is a completely different to what you're talking about. You're talking about witnessing a rape and not doing anything about it. What I'm talking about relates to the media itself and the publication thereof. It's a different charge.

And like I said, despite the legality of recording such a video, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to record something like that because it can easily be used against you in a court of law.

[Nacho]

Oh, I see... The thing is that we should see the video in spite of trying to imagine how it really was.Ã, 

To add more data to the debate, here it is legal to record everything in the public via, unless you incurr into another crime to do it (for example, entering in a private propperty, or broadcasting images of kids without permission or without censore...)

I am not sure about filming someone inside its property. I think you are allowed while you don't enter inside the propperty, hence the paparazzi with the big lenses.

EDIT: As you have noticed, I was talking about recording, except in the kids case, which I was talking about publication... It's the key difference here, I think. Because you can record everything, no? You can argue it' s been an accident... What you can't really do is publish something by accident.

[DGMacphee]

I'm not too sure because I'm not familiar with Spanish media law. Out of curiousity, could you point me to an English language website on your media law?

Anyway, despite the Spanish law, my comments were made in reference to the video that Timosity was talking about, which was filmed in Victoria, Australia so the media law there applies.

Also, in reference to the kid that got teabagged, it'd also depend on where he lived whether the recording of such was illegal.

However, this is all a very minor issue in this discussion because despite the legality it's still a dumb and terrible thing to do.

[Nacho]

No, I can't... I've found unswallowable websites about that, but in Spanish, sorry.  If I meet with a friend expert in laws I'll ask. 

[EagerMind]

DGMacphee, good job in clarifying the issue.

Obviously if a video is illegal, then whether it should be banned or not really isn't an issue. With something as open as the internet, stuff like this may sneak on once in a while, but it's up to the service providers to make sure it gets removed. What might be worth discussing is, how do service providers ensure this happens? Now if you're talking about some of these terrorist groups' websites, who post their propaganda and vidoes of their prisoners being killed and beheaded, I'm sure they're probably hosting their own content, and the only option is don't look at it. (Actually, not looking at something you don't want to would probably solve a lot of problems! )

Now, the stupid stunt videos? What you said. "The stupid shall suffer," as they say.

And I agree that sites like eBaum, though their viewpoint may be objectionable, should be allowed to express it as long as they're not promoting anything illegal. What's interesting is that a site like this gets people riled up, but the Darwin Awards seem to be ok.

Also, let's just be clear about videotaping without consent and publishing without consent. Illegal or not (and I'm not arguing whether or not it should be), I think the first is relatively harmless. If I tape somebody without their knowledge and watch it in the privacy of my own home, am I really harming anybody? I don't know, I guess it could be argued either way. But I think a law like this would be hard to enforce. Now if I go publish it on my web page without censent, certainly now I'm causing harm to somebody. But I think this brings up an interesting issue with sites like Flickr and YouTube. I wonder how much of their content (pictures of girls in short skirts, or videos of well-endowed woman walking down the street, etc.) is technically illegal?

Finally, I think you make a good point about the news. Really, is the clip Raggit posted news? Who needs obscure internet sites when our "responsible" news media makes this stuff headline news? Is it really a surprise to anyone that sexually molesting somebody royally screws up their head? But ultimately it's about ratings, and stuff like this gets the attention it does because people do watch it.

[LimpingFish]

The original ebaums link to this news segment, what was it called? "Banana Rape"? Why would anybody click that in the first place?

[deadsuperhero]

The original ebaums link to this news segment, what was it called? "Banana Rape"? Why would anybody click that in the first place?

Because eBaum lovers are stupid. More than half of the media is stolen anyways, and the corrupt people make craploads of money off of banner ads.
So the answer is this: money. Everything revolves around money. If someone claims to have a video of "a man being beheaded", somebody is going to click and watch that, just out of curiosity. Then they'll get distracted by the banner ads, click them, and the site with the video gets paid.

[Raggit]

Actually, the link was called "CLASSIC: Kid's life ruined by teabagging"

[Andail]

I think the whole new trend displays a sincere lack of human respect. If there wasn't an interest among people in general to see other human beings being harassed, abused or just made fun of in all possible aspects, these sites wouldn't exist.
In Sweden there was recently a case of a girl murdering the assaulter of her younger brother, after a video of said assault had been published on youtube (the video was then removed after intervention from swedish authorities).
I can't imagine how I would feel watching somebody I know - or myself for that matter - being made entertainment for the cynical public eye.
People have always been perverted in the sense that they've enjoyed watching torture (just think of the middle ages with public executions etc), but civilization has sort of surpressed that tendency. The recent video clip fad has brought us back hundreds of years, in that respect.

[DGMacphee]

I guess that's my problem with such videos: they exploit to the point that they degrade and without consent. Pornography I can understand because, although it's degrading, the people involved have given their consent to appearing in the video. In video showing rape or assault, there is no consent. It degrades a person without respect for their choice to retain dignity. No one should have to go through that.

[2ma2]

Oh, you've trodded a gray path there addressing pornography. Sure, I will not deny the fact that there are people of sane minds acting out their freak on infront of cameras, and nothing more, but abusive conditions and drug abuse has lead and will lead loads of unsuspetcing "actors" into a spiral of sex, money and drugs. Illegal? Well, drugs are often illegal, but the rest; no. Unethical? The gray area appears. Consent can be motivated by oh so many things.

[DGMacphee]

You think I'm condoning pornography due to the fact that there's consent? I don't. I just said I understand why exploitation in pornography more acceptable compared to a rape video -- making a comparison. I don't think they're on the same level, and you've got to agree there. Sure, Tiffany Big Tits might do porn to support her smack habbit but that's VERY different to someone being held down and raped while filmed. In the former, there's a choice happening, even if guided by an addiction it's still a choice made. My point is that latter is way degrading to the point of abhorrent because the victim is deprived of a basic human right. A porn actor isn't so much a victim -- you could argue that most porn actors arrived in the industry due to poor choices and thus their own responsibility.

To look at it in terms of ethics, which is what you want to do, let me put it this way: a pornography actor places a value judgement upon what their dignity is worth in terms of a dollar value. It may not be right, but that stretches more into questions of morals than ethics. Meanwhile, a rape victim is deprived of making a value judgement on their dignity because their dignity is unwillingly being exploited. Perpetrators who film rape deprive their victims of keeping their dignity and that's fucking inhumane.

Let me put it this way: do you consider a video of a rape less, more, or equally exploitive as a pornographic film?

I can understand there are grey areas in pornography, but you can't tell me that such grey areas put porn on equal footing with rape videos. No way!

[LimpingFish]

Can you condemn all "legitimate" pornography as exploitative on the grounds that some within the adult industry have been exploited, or corrupted, by unscrupulous individuals?

Isn't that like burning down your house because a turd is floating in your toilet bowl?

Doesn't pornography, at its basic commercial level, exploit the need for the quick, sexual fix that its consumers pay for?

Exploitation, by it's most basic definition, exists in almost every industry. Just in different, and thus, maybe more acceptable forms.

Which makes the term "Exploitation for Profit" too sweeping for my tastes.

Rape is a crime, a sickening manifestation of almost animalistic behaviour that most of humanity rightly finds abhorrent. To present it as entertainment is simply evil. To reduce it to something other than what it is, by comparing it to a medium which, though found morally dubious by some, is manufacted largely by, and for, consenting adults, will only lead us into that same grey area we seem to be trying so hard to avoid.

[DGMacphee]

Can you condemn all "legitimate" pornography as exploitative on the grounds that some within the adult industry have been exploited, or corrupted, by unscrupulous individuals?

Isn't that like burning down your house because a turd is floating in your toilet bowl?

Doesn't pornography, at its basic commercial level, exploit the need for the quick, sexual fix that its consumers pay for?

Exploitation, by it's most basic definition, exists in almost every industry. Just in different, and thus, maybe more acceptable forms.

But this is my point: rape videos AREN'T an industry.

My comparsion is thus: despite all the exploitation and corruption and unscrupulous individuals, pornograhy still relies upon people who have given consent. Although a dirty industry, it still relies upon people exercising their right to choice.

People filming rape relies upon people who DO NOT give their consent. No right to choice has been given -- in fact, it has been taken away. Sex has been forced, not chosen.

In regards to the porn industry, you can make critisisms upon moral grounds, but people in the industry can still exercise their human rights. Victims of rape can't.

[Nacho]

That's a weird point 2ma2, I think... The greys areas in pronography are simillar to the grey areas in rock and roll, and nobody complains...

Maybe the point were we don' t agree is that you think that people are inducted to pornography for paying a previous addiction. I don' t see the link. Then, any way of making easy money could be considered as "unmorale as it helps addicts to pay the drugs..."

If you know of any case of big fishes of the porn industry inducting young people to become addicts for having a future crew of porn actors/actresses, then I can' t discuss, but that must be a punctual case. And, as many other examples, "if some of the acts for making something is illegal, that does not mean the primal act is compulsory illegal". I mean... going to the park is not illegal. If you go to the park to kill people, then you are incurring into a crime, but going to the park isn' t. Hope my point is clear.

Same for porn, no?

Anyway, I like porn... ^_^ Maybe I am being to deffensive about it because I like it.

[LimpingFish]

I wasn't disagreeing with you, DG. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

My point was the same:

Videotaping an act of rape, and then broadcasting it for profit, is a crime. Anybody who views that tape for sexual gratification is a willing accessory to that crime.

Videotaping a consenting adult performing a sexual act, either alone or with another consenting adult, may be morally dubious, but, as you stated yourself, it's nowhere near the same thing.

What I was objecting to was the bringing of pornography into this discussion at all.

The original tape in the news bulletin covered by ebaums, captures a heinous crime and everybody involed is guilty, whether they actively took part or not. If somebody actively seeks out this tape, for sexual gratification, they are just as guilty.

But the point that sick people exist, who would view this tape as entertainment, doesn't alter its status.

Which is why I objected to 2ma2's comparison of exploitation within the porn industry.