Asylum Forums Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »
Show all 87 posts from this thread on one page

Asylum Forums (http://asylumnation.com/asylum/index.php)
- The Lost Forum (http://asylumnation.com/asylum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=3)
-- FBI Wants Pearl Video Off Internet (http://asylumnation.com/asylum/showthread.php?threadid=23263)


Posted by Inky on 05-26-2002 10:20 AM:

FBI Wants Pearl Video Off Internet

Sat May 25,12:39 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI (news - web sites) has contacted at least two Internet Web sites and asked them to stop displaying video footage of the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, the agency said Saturday.


Special agent Sandra Carroll of the FBI's field office in Newark, N.J., said the sites had been asked to voluntarily remove the video "out of consideration for the family" of Pearl. "To my knowledge, most have voluntarily done that," she added.

She declined to identify all the sites contacted but said there had been only a couple. The only one she mentioned by name was ogrish.com, which shows a variety of macabre images.

The ogrish Web site states that the FBI "contacted our host Prohosters to inform them that they were going to sue us for putting on the Pearl video on 5-18-2002. We had no other choice than deleting the video. ... We live in a censored world."

Carroll said an FBI agent may have passed along information that the Pearl family was "looking at what legal remedies that they may have," including obscenity laws. But she said there is no legal prohibition against showing the video.

Pearl disappeared Jan. 23 from outside a restaurant in Karachi, Pakistan, while researching possible links between Pakistani extremists and Richard C. Reid, who was arrested in December on a flight from Paris to Miami with explosives in his shoes. A gruesome three-minute video was delivered to U.S. officials in Karachi on Feb. 21 showing Pearl's death.

Steve Goldstein, a spokesman for Dow Jones & Co., the owner of The Wall Street Journal, said that "when the family notifies us that they have seen a video on one of the sites, we pass the information on to appropriate law enforcement officials."

"We share the family's view that there is no good reason for anyone to ever see this video," said Goldstein.


Posted by Smug Git on 05-26-2002 11:01 AM:

Alas, freedom of speech doesn't mean that we all have to have the same taste in what is decent and what isn't.

The pictures at rotten.com, like the motorcyclist with his brain all over the street, probably don't make that guy's family very happy either.

__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by philjit on 05-26-2002 11:05 AM:

I wonder what will happen if it ends up on a website hosted in Iraq or Iran.


Posted by Paint CHiPs on 05-26-2002 11:21 AM:

Even hosted in America, it should stay.


Posted by Paint CHiPs on 05-26-2002 11:23 AM:

No real movement to stop replays of the planes hitting the towers, that I know of.


Posted by Smug Git on 05-26-2002 12:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
No real movement to stop replays of the planes hitting the towers, that I know of.


That is great publicity for the administration, seeing as how it reminds everyone why they are doing what they are. I don't think the Pearl video does much (apart from reminding everyone to hate the filthy ragheads in general).
__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by shyloh on 05-26-2002 04:14 PM:

I personally feel that websites are almost celebrating in the deaths and misfortune of those people whom have died in those pictures and movies they post. But, i suppose they should be allowed to, it's all for traffic anyway.

__________________

confidence n. the feeling one has before he understands the situation.


Posted by greenleakynipples on 05-26-2002 04:29 PM:

I sure hope the ACLU is warming up. This video is not patently offensive, it is not obscene, and it's not copyrighted. The FBI has no reason to get involved. I don't care how much the public agrees, it's not right for the police to go knocking on people's door at night rattling their batons, trying to influence the legal conduct of individuals. If the Pearl family has issues, they can sue, and lose.

What it comes down to is that John Ashcroft is a dickhead.

Leakynips.


Posted by DevilMoon on 05-26-2002 05:48 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by greenleakynipples
..This video is not patently offensive, it is not obscene...



I don't know what I think of the censorship issue, I think it'll get out eventually anyway, but if a video of a man's throat being cut and his head being displayed is neither of those things then I would wonder what you could classify as offensive or obscene.


Posted by DevilMoon on 05-26-2002 05:49 PM:

By the way, Columbine killer death photos available now: http://www.ogrish.com/


Posted by philjit on 05-26-2002 05:55 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by DevilMoon
By the way, Columbine killer death photos available now: http://www.ogrish.com/


hahahahahahahaha humour point for you DMoon.


Posted by Smug Git on 05-26-2002 05:57 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by DevilMoon


I don't know what I think of the censorship issue, I think it'll get out eventually anyway, but if a video of a man's throat being cut and his head being displayed is neither of those things then I would wonder what you could classify as offensive or obscene.



I wonder if 'obscene' is more to do with stuff that has been created rather than simply a recording of a historical event. The pictures of the jews' mistreatment by the nazis, for example, are a valuable historical document and far more horrible.

I would agree that it is offensive to most people, though, although offensive is hardly anything new.
__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by greenleakynipples on 05-26-2002 06:11 PM:

For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

To be patently offensive means something has no value other than being offensive.

The Pearl video certainly has political value, thus is protected speech. Offensive? Certainly. Obscene? Not close.

Leakynips.


Oh, and the Pearl video is at Rotten.com


Posted by Inky on 05-26-2002 07:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by greenleakynipples
Oh, and the Pearl video is at Rotten.com



i can't find it, what's it under?


Posted by greenleakynipples on 05-26-2002 07:28 PM:

It was in their "Daily Rotten" section. Apparently it's cycled off the main page, but hasn't been archived yet. I didn't get to watch it (dial up was too slow) but it seems that their version was editted to hide the really gruesome parts. A bit uncharacteristic, it seems. Anyway, as soon as I get my comp in, I'll post it on my site for download...

Leakynips


Posted by Inky on 05-26-2002 08:23 PM:

link


Posted by Chantrea on 05-26-2002 09:05 PM:

Ugh. Wish I hadn't watched that.

__________________

All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.


Posted by GoFuckYourselves! on 05-26-2002 09:09 PM:

I believe in free speech, but this ain't free speech--it's far from it.

I also think a new law should be passed that would make it possible for the FBI to do whatever it could to remove from the internet (or any other medium, including its being sold person-to-person) any video of a human being's murder.

If this makes me a fascist, then so be it.

Discuss!


Posted by philjit on 05-26-2002 09:10 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by GoFuckYourselves!
I also think a new law should be passed that would make it possible for the FBI to do whatever it could to remove from the internet (or any other medium, including its being sold person-to-person) any video of a human being's murder.


as I said, what if it is hosted in Iraq? Feds can't do nothing then. Well nothing with the exception of bombing it out of existance but who would do a thing like that?.................................... oh.


Posted by Inky on 05-26-2002 09:15 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by GoFuckYourselves!
I believe in free speech, but this ain't free speech--it's far from it.

I also think a new law should be passed that would make it possible for the FBI to do whatever it could to remove from the internet (or any other medium, including its being sold person-to-person) any video of a human being's murder.




okay, why? like smug said earlier, there are far more offensive images out there that could offend or upset someone, why is this one so important?

just curious, does anyone know who got this video first and how it got out?


Posted by Smug Git on 05-26-2002 09:24 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by GoFuckYourselves!
I believe in free speech, but this ain't free speech--it's far from it.


You would have to explain that a little more, I don't understand how you can be right there.

And as Phil points out, the FBI could only prevent stuff being shown that was hosted in the US.

If you are going to give the FBI unconstitutional powers of censorship, I would prefer that they took a scythe to daytime TV instead.
__________________

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of


Posted by GoFuckYourselves! on 05-26-2002 09:26 PM:

Laws and individual cases.

Can one law really cover every scenario?

I'm putting myself in the place of Daniel Pearl. Isn't it bad enough that I be tortured like that without compounding my misery by allowing the world to see it?

HAVE WE SUNK THAT FUCKING LOW??????????????????????????????


Posted by philjit on 05-26-2002 09:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by GoFuckYourselves!
I'm putting myself in the place of Daniel Pearl.


you have cut your own head off and you can still type? impressive.


Posted by J E B Stuart on 05-26-2002 09:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Phil
. . . Well nothing with the exception of bombing it out of existance but who would do a thing like that?

I didn't say a word.

Amen.
__________________

" Future years will never know the seething hell and the black infernal background of countless minor scenes and interiors, (not the official surface courteousness of the Generals, not the few great battles) of the Secession war; and it is best they should not�the real war will never get in the books." ~ Walt Whitman


Posted by skalie on 05-26-2002 09:31 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
And as Phil points out, the FBI could only prevent stuff being shown that was hosted in the US.



Didn't the US pass a law that allowed them to extradite people that had had committed crimes on their soil? As in an illegal video being transmitted through a US ISP.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:13 PM. Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »
Show all 87 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.8
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2002.
Copyright © 2014- Imaginet Inc.
[Legal Notice] | [Privacy Policy] | [Site Index]