Please delete the link to the Daniel Pearl video

May 23, 2002 9:52 PM

Out of respect for the dead, and in the interest of keeping this community a respectable forum, could Matt please delete the link to the Daniel Pearl video . . . And perhaps place a moratorium on this kind of posting in the future? MetaFilter isn't Stile or Rotten.com, and I'd prefer the site not sink to that level.
posted by dogmatic to etiquette/policy at 9:52 PM (104 comments total)

I would be very careful to remove a link simply because it is found objectionable. Even if the FBI doesn't like it, it's still there. For my money, err on the side of spreading information rather than protecting us from reality, if we're all of a sudden up against that dichotomy.
posted by Hildago at 10:02 PM on May 23, 2002

Thousands of people are seeing the Daniel Pearl video, talking about the availability of the video, and advocating the removal of the video, but MetaFilter's best response is to pretend it isn't out there?

I disagree. If it was a link that's simply intended to titillate or shock, like most of the gross-out stuff on Rotten.Com, Stile, and the like, it would be out of place here. But a video that's the topic of major news coverage should not be inappropriate to link here, even if it's as nightmarishly gruesome as the press has documented.
posted by rcade at 10:08 PM on May 23, 2002

On preview, rcade's post says everything I wanted to.
Damn.
posted by Catch at 10:14 PM on May 23, 2002

I Posted the link out of the sheer news value of it. The situation is very unfortunate, but I think thinking and then discussing why this atrocity happened, who did it, and the aftermath is an important tool in making sure this doesn't happen again. The reason I posted this thread is the fact that the FBI - the national law enforcement agency - wants to ban this information. I have seen the video, and it made me physically ill, but the thought that a national police agency is banning choice abhorrers me as much as the content of the video. I believe that everyone has a choice to watch or to not. That is what America is about, the freedom to choose what defines your life, what passes before your eyes and what you think.

Like rcade said, the video link is topical and central to the discussion. in fact I hope it will spawn many sub themes such as the connection between pronography-death-commercial culture, instant celebrity, geopolitical influence and the role of the media to name a few. To yank this link would not necessarily limit these comments, but is essential to the discussion at hand. Either way, I think I was pretty lear about the contents and many have heard of the video, so it is not like you weren't warn.
posted by plemeljr at 10:20 PM on May 23, 2002

I completely agree with Dogmatic. Even though the post is in keeping with the goals of metafilter, and was intelligently presented and even educational (I didn't know the video was available on the net, or that the FBI was contacting ISP's), Matt should delete it because it could result in me having to confront reality. In short, we should consider this post to be exactly the same thing as gawking, freakshow, Stile-esque exploitation, and hold back information from intelligent adults because I have misguided views on respect, and decency.

Oh, and I'd also like Matt to tape the news for me and edit out all the nasty bits. Maybe read me a bedtime story, too.
posted by Doug at 10:33 PM on May 23, 2002

Oh, just to add...since I mangled the link and added an errant ' at the end of the video link, you have to fix the link manually to get to the offensive content. My extra $.02
posted by plemeljr at 11:30 PM on May 23, 2002

It was a good post, and the link should stay.
posted by willnot at 11:48 PM on May 23, 2002

I don't think the post itself should be deleted, as the situation is newsworthy and worth knowing about.

Forgetting about the fact that the link itself leads to that bastion of decency, consumption junction, the video shows a man's head being brutally removed from his body. Those who have the stomach for it are more than welcome to seek it out, and they shall, I'm sure. Even before a censored version was shown on broadcast TV it was being ardently searched for.

But I don't think the video link belongs here. We at MeFi are capable of having a civil discussion about the events unfolding without having seen the video -- after all, is there anyone who here doesn't know what's on it yet, or who can't be told? (If not, the censored video -- propaganda intact, beheading blocked -- would have also been just as easily linked) I seriously doubt that a public beheading enriches our view of the story in the headline, and I personally don't see the point of posting it outside of pure rank sensationalism.
posted by dogmatic at 11:51 PM on May 23, 2002

We at MeFi are capable of having a civil discussion about the events unfolding without having seen the video

and we at mefi are capable of not clicking a link if we think it's objectionable. i'd like to make the decision for myself, thanks.
posted by sugarfish at 11:55 PM on May 23, 2002

The video downright sickened me. But until now, I had no idea it even existed. I had the choice to not watch it, but the rebel in me insisted. I for one am glad I was informed of it.
posted by gummi at 11:57 PM on May 23, 2002

Good post, plemeljr. Not only could I control the impulse to click on the video link you provided--not that hard to do, kids, right? You know, how like if you don't want to click you don't have to click, and aren't you glad you have the choice to make icky gross decisions like this?--I also found some reasonably intelligent discussion both in the thread itself and here.

That's how this is all supposed to work, innit?
posted by WolfDaddy at 11:59 PM on May 23, 2002

sugarfish and WolfDaddy:

So what you're saying is, you didn't have to see the link to understand the situation or contribute to the discussion.

Good, I'm glad we're in agreement.

Now please tell me why the link to the video was necessary, and I'll rest my case.
posted by dogmatic at 12:02 AM on May 24, 2002

'see the link' = 'watch the video'

damn them semantics.
posted by dogmatic at 12:09 AM on May 24, 2002

dogmatic,
Just because I've got finely honed impulse control (yeah, right) doesn't mean everyone does. Putting the link to the video in the post--with enough context to give the reader absolutely no doubt where the link leads--gives the reader enough information to make an informed decision and the power to act upon it. Either way, whether the reader clicks on the video link or not, plemeljr's post seems to have provoked some good discussion, and that's what I've come to understand is the hallmark of a good FPP on MeFi.

I would have objected if, say, someone had put a link to the video with a one word description of "sick" or something similar. That didn't happen here.

Let me ask you this: would you also object to a link to clips from the Zapruder film, should someone find something newsworthy about it? Why? Respect for the dead? The notion that MeFi cannot be used as a link repository?
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:23 AM on May 24, 2002

because the video is part of the larger story, that's why. it's not a gratituitous link (ie, the kitten-eating debacle.) and even if it was, it wouldn't matter. this isn't MetaRespectForTheDeadFilter.

and because it doesn't matter if it's necessary or not. don't like the link, don't watch it.

on preview, what WolfDaddy said.
posted by sugarfish at 12:25 AM on May 24, 2002

it's not absolutely necessary, but it is the main topic of the post. metafilter is for information dissemination, if a post is about a link, i expect that link to be included. also, just because a link isn't necessary doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. many things are not necessary, this MeTa post for example, yet no one is calling for their removal. it's clear that the link was not for shock value, it's exclusion would have been a judgment by the poster that we shouldn't see something that he had, and i think that would be unacceptable. if you don't think there should have been a post at all, and don't think this is something that should be discussed on metafilter then just skip the link.
posted by rhyax at 12:30 AM on May 24, 2002

Ah, but the video is not the main topic of the post as it is written; the main topic of the post is the FBI calling to web host to have the video removed. In addition, there the are gratuitous links to Bonsai Kitten and something else (the link is bunged) as well, just for, uh, well, I don't know what point. It's provocative linking at its best.

We know who Daniel Pearl is. We know who killed him, why and how. We've followed this story on MeFi since it started. If the goal was for us to discuss whether or not the FBI ought to be going after sites and hosting companies who are disseminating the video, we could do that very easily and very well without needing to see the video at all.

This post only needed one link. Should it be removed? That's Matt's call. Is it completely unnecessary? Absolutely. I'll go on record as believing that this was a straight-up attempt to be titillating, little more. I'll also say that I worry about anyone who feels that they need to watch Daniel Pearl being murdered. There is nothing good served by seeing another human being brutally slain. Nothing.
posted by Dreama at 1:13 AM on May 24, 2002

In other news, there is no Santa Clause.
posted by bingo at 1:42 AM on May 24, 2002

Actually I just watched the video, and I think it's quite interesting. The execution itself is only a small part; mostly it's a speech that Perl was obviously being forced to give, and it's really a propaganda/hate message to Americans from the Pakistani group that did it. I think that's why the government doesn't want it out there...the executioner-friendly video producers directly say at the end that the scene (i.e. similar executions) will be repeated again and again until their demands are met.

Triumph of the Will it ain't, but calling it an "execution video" is a bit of an oversimplification.
posted by bingo at 1:54 AM on May 24, 2002

the main topic of the post is the FBI calling to web host to have the video removed

Which the link in question perfectly supports, Dreama. If you choose to watch the video, you can put yourself in the FBI's shoes, and wonder what you would do if you had to decide whether or not to pick up the phone and intimidate someone into censoring themselves. If your imagination will suffice well enough to preclude seeing the video ... that's great. It won't do for everyone out there, though, and it's not up to you to make that call (insert standard "Matt makes the ultimate call" stipulation here). Nor should it be up to the FBI to make that call, especially when they're acting at the behest of Dow Jones.

There is nothing good served by seeing another human being brutally slain. Nothing.

Not even "know your enemy"? Not even the comfort the family of a murder victim might feel when watching said murderer's execution?
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:58 AM on May 24, 2002

I find these calls for censorship more disturbing than the distribution of the video.
posted by mischief at 2:34 AM on May 24, 2002

Man, it’s not often ethics come up in a serious way on MetaFilter.

rcade: “But a video that's the topic of major news coverage should not be inappropriate to link here, even if it's as nightmarishly gruesome as the press has documented.”

C'mon Rogers, you’re essentially saying that the standards of this website are set by “major news” organizations. By that logic if “major news” organizations jumped off a bridge you would too. If standards are solely based on someone else’s standards there wouldn’t be such a thing as standards.

plemeljr “I believe that everyone has a choice to watch or to not.”

True enough.

con't: “That is what America is about, the freedom to choose what defines your life, what passes before your eyes and what you think.”

Would you deny the community the right to choose whether it wants the link or not? Does the community get to take part in what compromises (your version) of American values or are individuals the only entities that can partake of said “freedom”?

The logical conclusion of this statement is that neither the MetaFilter community as a body nor Matt as the owner have the right to choose whether they want the link to stay or not because it might effect an individual’s “freedom to choose”.

Put another way, if “everyone has a choice” and “the freedom to choose ... what passes before your eyes” then someone may very well choose that a link to vulgar works (“not work safe, or even home safe”) is not something they want to see. So each individual — using your definition of freedom — has the choice to weed out even links to material they prefer not to be exposed to. But then any other individual has the right to see those same vulgar works. Nice little tarbaby you’ve got to work out there.

That said, the link to the video wasn't absolutely neccessary to the topic post. I'm not sure whether the Bonsai Kitten and Y2K videos (don't even know what that is) were added as examples of other controversial web pages or as cases of law enforcement using their censorious powers on Internet content.

Whether the link should be edited out of the post... I really have no opinion. I am very ignorant of a lot of the operational aspects of MetaFilter that would help me decide.
posted by raaka at 2:34 AM on May 24, 2002

Is it completely unnecessary?

No. It's more information, relevant to the topic at hand. Anytime we consider information to be something we'd rather not have access to -- not something we'd rather not have, mind you -- we are choosing a path of ignorance that can only, by a reductio ad absurdum, lead to a terrible dystopian world.

The link was informative, and more importantly, the link was reality. Judging it by standards of decency is imposing an arbitrary moral structure on reality. Now, if an arbitrary moral structure is what you live your life by, so be it, but I'd advise you to make every possible attempt to eliminate the part of that structure that tells you to impose it on others.
posted by j.edwards at 2:35 AM on May 24, 2002

oop

Does the community get to take part in what comprises...
posted by raaka at 2:38 AM on May 24, 2002

Dogmatic: "Now please tell me why the link to the video was necessary, and I'll rest my case."

Nuh uh. You have the burden of proof here. Sure, the post could've been fine without the link. That isn't the same thing as it being unneccesary, which is what you're arguing.
For the record, I haven't watched the video(it doesn't interest me), or even looked in at the thread. All Plemeljr did was save those who would look the step of searching for it, otherwise the video link itself is obvious enough that anyone who doesn't want to know should just not click it.

Your attitude is the same thing that is causing the media to deny the WTC every existed other than as a mass of burning wreckage they can randomly pull out as a source of pathos. Even The Simpsons, with its reputation of insulting damn near everything at some point or another, has pulled, forever, an episode involving the buildings.

The additional links are not gratuitous. Dunno about the second one, but the Bonsai Kitten site raised a pretty good controversy in its time. Unfortunately, it was a joke, and that context is being carried along here.
posted by Su at 2:39 AM on May 24, 2002

A place for everything . . .
And everything in its place.

Whether or not I -- or anyone else for that matter -- click on the link is irrelevant. Whether or not the link even works is beside the point. And the point is this: just because something can be done, doesn't mean that it should.

Even if no one views the video, whether it's because they're disinterested or because the link is broken, the fact is that that link reflects back on the community. And it says to anyone viewing at home, any outsider looking in, that this kind of link is fair game here.

You can claim information dispersal, knowing your enemy or whatnot, but that still doesn't change the fact that someone was hurt in this video -- many people were hurt by this video -- and despite the wishes of those involved we've somehow decided that it's ok to publicize a death out of pure sensation. There's a family, a mother and an unborn child and parents, that are begging for people to have the decency to stop showing this filth, and yet it plods on for what appears to some sick form of political propaganda. You may think that you're honoring the man by exposing his killers for the animals they really are, but what you're really doing is sending a big 'fuck you!' to the people he worked with and the family he left behind.

And how does that make you look, those of you who defended the link? How does that make us look, the MetaFilter community?

It makes us look like a bunch of assholes. It makes you look like a bunch of assholes.

There are places to go if you want to see pictures of death and dismemberment -- Consumption, Rotten, Stile -- just to name a few. If you feel compelled to see this kind of content, to participate in this kind of bullshit patriotism, waving your first amendment rights over someone else's shallow grave, go there.

The point is, I don't want MeFi to be the kind of place that accepts, and even defends, posting and linking to snuff films. But I guess it's too late for that.
posted by dogmatic at 3:11 AM on May 24, 2002

Actually I just watched the video, and I think it's quite interesting.

Glad you find the murder of a friend of my family to be so interesting! My uncle gave the eulegy at his funeral a few months back; he was in tears the entire time. I am sure that he (who was Pearl's boss for years) and the rest of my family and the Pearl family are so excited that the murder of a loved one could spark so much interest with you!

So, I just want to make sure we understand each other: if a link is posted to a video of say, the graphic death of one of your loved ones, the link can remain because we find it interesting?

Dogmatic is right. The posting of this shit makes us look like assholes. I would rather there be a page full of double posts to year-old silly flash films than this garbage.
posted by adampsyche at 4:09 AM on May 24, 2002

and hold back information from intelligent adults because I have misguided views on respect, and decency.

What a bunch of crap. How did the graphic depiction of someone's murder provide you with information? What did you learn, exactly?
posted by adampsyche at 4:19 AM on May 24, 2002

Everybody is someone's loved one. Everybody.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:24 AM on May 24, 2002

It's interesting that this is still up. I posted a chechen video a long time ago of a APC being blown up by rebels and Matt killed it as too graphic.

I'm not offended that this is on Mefi at all, you choose whether you want to see it or not.

posted by revbrian at 5:28 AM on May 24, 2002

I find myself wondering if anyone sees the difference between the post in question in this discussion and this one.

There's a huge difference in providing a post that questions how recorded evidence of actual events can apparently spur a federal agent or two to use tactics of intimidation--with no force of law behind them--to coerce a small business into censorship and a post that merely highlights the exploitative practices of the National Enquirer.

The former is worrisome, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to view the video in case I needed to see it in trying to understand why someone at the FBI would be so heavy-handed without any apparent protection of due process. I decided not to watch the video, but now I'm wondering if it is indeed necessary, to help me understand just where we may be headed if we start removing things from public view and adult discourse that a--quite frankly--miniscule number of people can claim is directly hurtful to them. While I in no way want to diminish the suffering of those people, I must finally reluctantly acknowledge that the issues raised by the post contribute to a growing sense of unease about how a lot of people have reacted to events of the last 9 months. Some of those people I elected into office. Some of those people support actions such as what the FBI is described to have done. Some of those people would do a lot worse if we let them. And I'm starting to feel we are letting them, slowly but surely, so we can feel safe, and feel that we aren't hurting anyone.

The latter is just business as usual.

I'm sorry that indignation and personal grief have blinded some people to these thoughts.
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:34 AM on May 24, 2002

If the thing popped up automatically when you came to the site, or if there were freeze frames of images taken from it on the front page (or even in the post itself), then I think you might have a point. As it is, with the mangled url, you actually have to work at seeing it.

I would be very disappointed if Matt edited or deleted the thread in question. I'm an adult, and I can think for myself.

(For what it's worth, dogmatic and adampsyche, I wouldn't have looked at the video had you not made such a stink about it here.)
posted by crunchland at 5:35 AM on May 24, 2002

Poor Matt, it's about 5:30 in the morning on the west coast. Can you imagine having to wake up and deal with this mess?
posted by jeremias at 5:42 AM on May 24, 2002

Dogmatic: You still haven't answered my question, and that's been your problem throughout this entire thread. You're asking a lot of stuff, and a lot of things are coming out of your keyboard, but none of it is being held up by much more than the sheer force of your own emotion. Why is this video any worse than the video and/or pictures of people jumping out of the WTC buildings? I don't recall a similar request for deletion being made then.

"And the point is this: just because something can be done, doesn't mean that it should."
Like deleting a link without good reason?

"Even if no one views the video, whether it's because they're disinterested or because the link is broken, the fact is that that link reflects back on the community."
And links to pictures of kitties, pancakes and hats of meat also make us look like fucking morons. Links to every news item criticizing [large corporation] make us look like anti-consumerist commies. Links to the Museum of Sex make us look like perverts. What was your point again? Oh, and what about links to IsDickCheneyDeadYet? That's oh-so-respectful.

Besides...if you're so against this link existing, why did you link to the thread involving it on your own site? Aren't you contributing to its propagation? Does the fact you're only doing it by proxy somehow absolve you? If the link stays, will you then go back and edit that out? How long will you wait before doing that? How respectful do you consider it to set a time limit on how long someone's suffering is allowed to be broadcast?
posted by Su at 5:46 AM on May 24, 2002

Aw. Sorry to make a stink about it. Seeing people defend the watching of a friend of the family being killed, and people dismissing it as "information", kinda makes people get stinky. You sound like a teenager rebelling against his parents ("But, if you didn't make such a big stink about not smoking, I wouldn't have ever tried it! Waaah! You made me do it!")

Wolfdaddy: your post is pretty presumptuous. I did not ever see the other post, so that one doesn't enter into my mind. What you are saying is, that you have to be able to watch this man's death in order to understand the issues? Interesting!

FYI: I am not about agencies forcing anyone to do anything, or censoring information, etc. I just think that a link to this video has no place here, and those that chose to watch it are, like donkeyschlong said, rationalizing morbid curiosity. It is a wonder that anyone can feel like watching this, or wide public access to it, is necessary for them to understand something. You need to be spoonfed violence to such a degree in order to "get it?" Having the freedom to watch it has nothing to do with being a respectful enough person not to.

Oh. I am sooooo sorry that the insignificant and "miniscule" grief of a few people have gotten in the way of your crusade for such worth information! If that was the case, then why the need to link to the fucking video? You mean to tell me that a link to the Wired article is not enough for you to comprehend? Can't you find the video on your own without having it linked on Metafilter?
posted by adampsyche at 5:47 AM on May 24, 2002

Besides...if you're so against this link existing, why did you link to the thread involving it on your own site?

Did he link to the video? I think that is what he is taking issue with.
posted by adampsyche at 5:49 AM on May 24, 2002

Glad you find the murder of a friend of my family to be so interesting!

Yes, let's throw all logic and distance out the window and wallow in cheap emotionalism.

So, I just want to make sure we understand each other: if a link is posted to a video of say, the graphic death of one of your loved ones, the link can remain because we find it interesting?

Certainly. The bad thing is that the death happened. Post hoc examinations/analyses of it do not make it worse.
posted by rushmc at 5:50 AM on May 24, 2002

Adam: The questions are a set. The ones following are much more important than that one.

Nice try, though.
posted by Su at 5:52 AM on May 24, 2002

Why not remove the link to CJ? I personally have no problem with a discussion of the issue, or the Wired link, but is the link to the film necessary?

No one is wallowing here. I have no problem with "Post hoc examinations/analyses," but the link to the video.
posted by adampsyche at 5:58 AM on May 24, 2002

Su: the following questions seem to be concerning dogmatic's link, and I can't answer those questions for him. I think I addressed the question in the second paragraph.
posted by adampsyche at 6:01 AM on May 24, 2002

You sound like a teenager rebelling against his parents.

No. I sound like an audience member waiting in line to see the movie The Last Temptation of Christ in spite of and because of the protests of all those christian groups back in 1988, causing the movie to make more money and get more attention than it deserved.

Righteous people who protest and think censorship is the answer usually just end up drawing more attention to the one thing they want to take attention away from.
posted by crunchland at 6:10 AM on May 24, 2002

Righteous people who protest and think censorship is the answer usually just end up drawing more attention to the one thing they want to take attention away from.

Right you are. But, I never said that anything should be censored. I would like to see the link to the video removed, because there are boundaries. You can come up with a million and one reasons why using the c-word is not a bad thing, and that those who protest it are ninnies and should not subject others to censorship and their language preferences.

You can also argue, as has been very recently, that there are more implications of that word for many people than there are for some, and that a general disapproval on this site is understood. For the record: I have no problem with the word, but this is a community, and I don't want to shit on others (within reason, and I find both this circumstance and theirs to be well within reason).
posted by adampsyche at 6:20 AM on May 24, 2002

What you are saying is, that you have to be able to watch this man's death in order to understand the issues? Interesting!

I'm saying precisely that. If I don't say it, then I have to admit the possibility that those FBI agents got so heavy-handed without seeing it. Could you live with yourself if you had to intimidate someone into taking it off their site if you hadn't even seen the video in question?

As someone who works for an ISP, and who is in the position to make these kinds of content decisions cave to the FBI if they strongarm me with no real legal backing, I think I'd like to know what it is that all the fuss is about before I give in to the state. I don't want to do it, and so far haven't had to do it. That doesn't mean I'm going to place blind faith in the FBI to do it for me, though.

That the link exists here on MeFi doesn't bother me because I believe it was an attempt to provoke some serious, if uncomfortable and challenging, thinking. The fact that links to the video itself can be found elsewhere and to suggest that they should be found elsewhere is akin to telling people who want to seriously discuss The Last Temptation of Christ to do so in the middle of Mass.
posted by WolfDaddy at 6:38 AM on May 24, 2002

I'm saying precisely that. If I don't say it, then I have to admit the possibility that those FBI agents got so heavy-handed without seeing it. Could you live with yourself if you had to intimidate someone into taking it off their site if you hadn't even seen the video in question?

I read the article, and for the record, although I think it a shitty thing to host the video, I do not agree with the FBI strong-arm tactics described therein. I think that the issue should be discussed on Metafilter: it is an issue affecting the Internet and current issues, and it should be discussed. I find no reason for the link to the video, though, and do not agree with your analogy. It does not fit; if it does, please explain how. We can seriously discuss the issue, but the "serious, if uncomfortable and challenging, thinking" can be had without a link to the video.

From the article:

An editor at Rotten.com, which posted an edited copy of the execution video, said the site has not been contacted by Pearl's widow or his family. A notice on Rotten.com's "Daily Rotten" section says: "In consideration to the Pearl family, while recognizing the importance of bringing you an uncut version of this film, we have blocked out the graphic images of Pearl's death, leaving the rest of the video intact."

The sky must be falling, because even Rotten is not above consideration. I have to find the fact that they showed some consideration, even if it was only to remove the part containing his death, somewhat heartening. And all the other bits that you all find so interesting and compelling are still there.
posted by adampsyche at 6:59 AM on May 24, 2002

C'mon Rogers, you’re essentially saying that the standards of this website are set by “major news” organizations. By that logic if “major news” organizations jumped off a bridge you would too. If standards are solely based on someone else’s standards there wouldn’t be such a thing as standards.

I'm saying that when something on the Internet is of significant international interest because of its relevance to significant events, a site that serves as a news source shouldn't shy away from linking to it. Especially since the mainstream media refuses to link to it.

The Daniel Pearl video to me is no different than the Zapruder film or the execution of the Vietnamese prisoner I mentioned in the thread. All three were significant news events where there is a legitimate public interest in viewing them. The particulars of Pearl's execution could easily have an impact on American sentiment and government policy in the war on terrorism, and that refutes the accusation that the link was posted strictly to titillate the audience.

You can continue to call me every name in the book, but I think your claim is no different than if Caroline Kennedy Schlossburg tried to get the Zapruder film pulled from circulation. Some footage is of such societal importance that allowing it to be viewed should override the family's understandable concern about the depiction of their loved one's death.
posted by rcade at 7:51 AM on May 24, 2002

Not even "know your enemy"? Not even the comfort the family of a murder victim might feel when watching said murderer's execution?

One has to see this video in order to know our enemy? That's like saying that someone has to stick their hand in the flame to know that it burns, or saying that you need to see some actual sadistic child pornography to know the depths of depravity in the molesting scum who create it.

A man was kidnapped, tortured, repeatedly threatened, forced to make a chilling self-indictment in which he had to condemn himself for nothing more than his faith, then he was killed in a most horrifying fashion and his body was dumped in some remote place where it was only recently found. Knowing those facts says all that needs to be said. If that's not enough for you, I'll posit that you're not really thinking about it hard enough. As adampsyche said, do you need to be spoonfed this remarkable violence in order to understand it, or is that just the lazy -- and in this case, disrespectful to a sickening degree -- way around a complex issue?

And there is no correlation between watching a terroristic act of murderand viewing a sterile execution, and it's pretty pathetic to attempt to derail this discussion with a poison spike.

Could you live with yourself if you had to intimidate someone into taking it off their site if you hadn't even seen the video in question?

That's completely irrelevant. No one on this site is charged with the task of "intimidating" or even counselling anyone with taking the video off of their site. Yes, it would be wrongheaded and hypocritical if the FBI agents who made the decision to make the call had not seen the footage, but that has nothing to do with us, nor our viewing of the video. We do not have their responsibilities, therefore we do not have to bear their burdens.
posted by Dreama at 7:55 AM on May 24, 2002

Dreama: Did we need to be "spoonfed" the graphic footage of people dying in Vietnam, when we could have just read about them in the newspaper? Some of that footage -- which was undoubtedly painful to the families of the identifiable people who died -- helped erode public support for the war. The Pearl video could easily have an impact on the course of the war on terrorism.

Arguing that we don't need to see this video is like arguing that the photos of dead Palestineans and dead Israelis that show up on Yahoo News and elsewhere don't need to be viewed. I don't understand how a country with a free press could produce people who are so eager not to be shown things.
posted by rcade at 8:15 AM on May 24, 2002

bingo: "In other news, there is no Santa Clause."

Well, actually, yes there is. But what remains unanswered is whether there is a Santa Claus.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:20 AM on May 24, 2002

Su,

In a nutshell, you seem to be asking 'Why not?' while I'm asking 'Why?' I've already answered your question, but to paraphrase once again:

I think MeFi should have a moral responsibility to be above trashy sensationalist sites like those I mentioned earlier, those that profit off the deaths of people like Daniel Pearl.

In the past, MeFi's moral barometer has been appropriately responsible in avoiding these types of links.

Which brings me to my question of 'Why?', for which I've yet to receive a satisfactory explanation. 1) I don't see how the video adds context to or enriches the post, and 2) I fail to see how the community benefits from linking a snuff video, except to attract more of the same.

I think I've already explained why [this is bad]. Please tell me why [this is good]. Because truthfully, there are other places where files that [might be offensive] are admired and condoned, and you're welcome to frequent them.

I just fail to see how the link to the video of a brutal murder fits in here.
posted by dogmatic at 8:40 AM on May 24, 2002

[this is tiresome] You want something to be removed from MetaFilter on the grounds of decency and respectability, dogmatic. The burden of proof should be on you, considering that this has never been a place where either criteria has caused links to be removed in the past.
posted by rcade at 8:54 AM on May 24, 2002

Yes, it would be wrongheaded and hypocritical if the FBI agents who made the decision to make the call had not seen the footage, but that has nothing to do with us, nor our viewing of the video. We do not have their responsibilities, therefore we do not have to bear their burdens.

oh but we do need to bear the burden of creating public policy. we are a free democracy. the fbi are there to protect us from crime, not to filter information for us. the role you would have them play is deeply disturbing. are you comfortable with them patronizing the american people? should we be thankful to them for bearing the burden of reality so that we don't have to? no thank you, i'll not be thankful when someone prevents me from accessing information, of any kind.


further, i have seen no calls for the discussion about this video not to exist, only that the link to the video not be included in the post. so i assume what the people calling for the link's removal would be happy with something thematically like the current post excluding the link.

if i made a link to something else, say a book review, wouldn't it be strange if i didn't link that review, but assumed you could find it on your own if you wanted to read it? of course it would, so you are arguing that this topic should deserve special treatment, it should follow different rules of linking that every other post on metafilter. according to these new rules, it must fall on the poster to decide if s/he should follow the standard metafilter posting norm, or this new censorship standard. plemeljr must now decide which, of the relevant links, i should have access to. i don't think this is the role of the poster, why is s/he more qualified than i to know what i have interest in seeing?

i don't ask that people who post stories, or the fbi shield me from reality.

posted by rhyax at 8:55 AM on May 24, 2002

oh but we do need to bear the burden of creating public policy. we are a free democracy. the fbi are there to protect us from crime, not to filter information for us.

All true. None of that, however, has any direct relation to whether or not a link to this video ought to exist on the front page of MetaFilter.

further, i have seen no calls for the discussion about this video not to exist, only that the link to the video not be included in the post. so i assume what the people calling for the link's removal would be happy with something thematically like the current post excluding the link.

Exactly -- we can discuss the merits of the FBI action without the video. Period.

if i made a link to something else, say a book review, wouldn't it be strange if i didn't link that review, but assumed you could find it on your own if you wanted to read it?

That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

posted by Dreama at 9:06 AM on May 24, 2002

But, I never said that anything should be censored. I would like to see the link to the video removed, because there are boundaries.

And you don't see the contradiction between those two statements?

The argument that it is not necessary to post the link is a specious one. No link that has ever been posted to Metafilter was a "necessary" one. Necessity doesn't enter into it.

It always amazes me when people vehemently condemn something that they haven't even seen. As others have pointed out here, there is a lot more to this video clip than just a filmed murder. You may not be interested in propaganda relevant to the two most dangerous situations on the planet at the moment, and that's perfectly fine. But you have no right to decide what others may legitimately be interested in.
posted by rushmc at 9:10 AM on May 24, 2002

No one on this site is charged with the task of "intimidating" or even counselling anyone with taking the video off of their site.

I think that's a rather presumptuous claim to make, given the size, hetergeneity, and anonymity of the audience for this site.

if i made a link to something else, say a book review, wouldn't it be strange if i didn't link that review, but assumed you could find it on your own if you wanted to read it?

That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Huh? It made perfect sense to me. It's called referencing original source material, a fairly common (and approved) practice.
posted by rushmc at 9:13 AM on May 24, 2002

I don't think the video link should have been posted: as has been discussed, it's gratuitous, adds little to the discussion, and could have been tracked down by those who cared. I don't think that MeFi should encourage such exploitative content.

That said, I don't believe Matt should remove the link. My view on the link's appropriateness comes down to opinion (although it's an opinion that I'd try to convince the masses of MeFi to share). I'm more inclined to call for the MetaTalk mafiosos to affirm "Yeah, we agree, don't do things like this," rather than push for it to be censored a la Simpsons. I am a little disappointed that so many people are defending the link as a valuable contribution, and not deriding it as the tabloid-style sensationalism that it is.
posted by Marquis at 9:16 AM on May 24, 2002

"And there is no correlation between watching a terroristic act of murder and viewing a sterile execution"...What is different is the subject of the content, but more disturbing is what is similiar: the US Department of Justice that wants to censor this video is the same USDOJ who provided a closed-circut viewing of Tim McVeigh being executed to family members of victims. In short, when it suits their purposes snuff videos are okay. I don't think the system needs our help to manipulate and further erode our right to a free press. I choose not to view this or people jumping out of the WTC, and I want to retain that right to choose for myself.

posted by Mack Twain at 9:21 AM on May 24, 2002

But, I never said that anything should be censored. I would like to see the link to the video removed, because there are boundaries.

Bullshit. This site is censored every time Matt deletes a thread, for whatever reason. This community, through its interactions, have self censored and self policed, and determined what is acceptable. If I post a link to my Web site, it will be censored. It's about what is acceptable within the community. Oh no! Matt censored a link to badassbuddy.com!

Huh? It made perfect sense to me.

What doesn't make sense is that the original, uncut video was necessary. It wasn't.

As others have pointed out here, there is a lot more to this video clip than just a filmed murder.

Even Rotten.com had the decency to post the vid with the propaganda, without the murder. Metafilter: boldly going where not even Rotten will?

You may not be interested in propaganda relevant to the two most dangerous situations on the planet at the moment, and that's perfectly fine. But you have no right to decide what others may legitimately be interested in.

Certainly I am interested in it. And I never claimed that no one else should be. Are you interested in the story or the watching of the murder? Can't you have a discussion without the actual murder being on the front page of Metafilter? I am interested in the propaganda, but not a man getting his throat cut on MeFi's front page. They can be separated, even Rotten did it.

and I want to retain that right to choose for myself.

Whether or not the link is on the frong page of Metafilter, guess what: you still have that right.

I'm more inclined to call for the MetaTalk mafiosos to affirm "Yeah, we agree, don't do things like this," rather than push for it to be censored a la Simpsons. I am a little disappointed that so many people are defending the link as a valuable contribution, and not deriding it as the tabloid-style sensationalism that it is.

Well said.
posted by adampsyche at 9:32 AM on May 24, 2002

Damnit, my first response was meant to be not to myself, but to this statement:

And you don't see the contradiction between those two statements?
posted by adampsyche at 9:33 AM on May 24, 2002

Ya know, adampsyche, it's unfair of you to try and demonize Bingo for finding the video interesting. I haven't watched it, but I'm sure it is interesting. Something can be horrible and interesting. For instance, I found the WTC footage interesting. Does that mean I was drooling with ghoulish delight while watching it? I can assure you I was not.

Rcade is, in my mind, absolutely correct: there's no difference between this footage and footage of the kennedy assassination, nazi war crimes, vietnamese executions. A wise man once said, "Everybody is someone's loved one." It sucks that a friend of your family died, Adam, but some things go beyond simple familial concerns.
posted by Doug at 9:42 AM on May 24, 2002

Even Rotten.com had the decency to post the vid with the propaganda, without the murder. Metafilter: boldly going where not even Rotten will?

Unfair comparison. MetaFilter isn't publishing the video. It's publishing a link.
posted by rcade at 9:48 AM on May 24, 2002

Yes. A link to a video. No, it isn't on the servers, but if you follow Su's logic, it's damn near an endoresemnt. (Not that I follow his logic).

Like I said: the link to the video, the uncut video with the murder, is unnecessary at best.
posted by adampsyche at 9:54 AM on May 24, 2002

I just wanted to tell Su that I saw that episode of the simpsons earlier this week during the re-runs. I was surprised, but they did show it.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:09 AM on May 24, 2002

if i made a post to something else, say a book review, wouldn't it be strange if i didn't link that review, but assumed you could find it on your own if you wanted to read it?

more clear?
posted by rhyax at 10:13 AM on May 24, 2002

Adam: Don't put words in my mouth. I asked whether Dogmatic felt he was adding to the video's propagation. It should be damn obvious to you he's not endorsing it, nor was I implying that. By the same argument, Metafilter is not endorsing the video. It is presenting information. Endorsement and whatnot will be made by every individual user in their comments, if they so choose. MeFi itself is just the messenger, so to speak, and has not to date been held responsible for any given comment by a single user, that I know of.

You are once again ascribing morality where it does not belong. The video is information, as several people have pointed out before, and you seemed to assume meant there was something to learn. Information is a thing, neither good nor bad. While you might think there's nothing to learn from a given piece of information, others might disagree with you. That doesn't give you the right to deny them access to it, or to have a reference to it removed from a public forum just because you don't like it.

Dogmatic: I've already said, and now Rcade also, that the burden of proof is on you as to why the link should go. I have never, as you seem to imply in your comment, said that the video/link is good(again with the morality!), just that it does in fact belong.
And yes, I'm asking "Why not?" You, on the other hand, are not asking "Why?" You're saying "Delete!" because of your personal beliefs. And, incidentally, you have yet to answer a single one of my questions.

"In the past, MeFi's moral barometer has been appropriately responsible in avoiding these types of links."

Exactly what moral barometer are you referring to? I've been unaware of it all this time, and if the links were avoided, then 1) how do you know they were and 2) how were you aware of this barometer that apparently hasn't been used yet? Chicken or egg?

"I don't see how the video adds context to or enriches the post,"

It's a fact of the issue being discussed in the post. The video is the reason for the post. If the video didn't exist on the net, the FBI wouldn't be doing what they're doing. Good enough?
Someone has already called into question whether you can actually make an informed decision as to the FBI's actions without seeing the video.

"I fail to see how the community benefits from linking a snuff video, except to attract more of the same."

Not everything has to be for the "benefit of the community." Of what benefit to the community was your link to IsDickCheneyDeadYet? other than that the thread attracted a bunch of other links just as tasteless as it? Would you have linked to IsDanielPearlDeadYet.com? Prior to the execution itself, it would've been a similar situation, no?

I find it interesting that there is some kind of assumption that the link will make us look like ghouls, but nobody has actually made any sort of comment as to what's going on in the thread itself. I haven't looked at it. Anyone care to say anything?
posted by Su at 10:30 AM on May 24, 2002

Metafilter is not endorsing the video. It is presenting information. Endorsement and whatnot will be made by every individual user in their comments, if they so choose. MeFi itself is just the messenger, so to speak, and has not to date been held responsible for any given comment by a single user, that I know of.

Agreed. It just seemed that that was the point you were trying to make by mentioning dogmatic's post.

That doesn't give you the right to deny them access to it, or to have a reference to it removed from a public forum just because you don't like it.

Oh, for the love of all that is sacred and pure, no one is asking anyone to be denied anything. And, Metafilter is not a public forum. It is private property with a self-policing community. If Matt thinks it should stay, I will disagree with him, but it is his site and he can chose to do whatever he wishes with it. Since it is a society that self polices, and uses discussion to determine what we find acceptable here, I am merely expressing what I would like to not find in the community, just as others have asked for and received moratoriums on things they do not wish to see.
If the video didn't exist on the net, the FBI wouldn't be doing what they're doing. Good enough?

No. If Dick Cheney didn't exist, there would be no isdickcheneydeadyet.com or a link to it, but we don't need Dick Cheney himself or even a link to his personal web page to add context. I personally find a large difference between the link you pointed out and the snuff film. There was no graphic footage of an individual's death on that site, for one. That is what the issue is here.

just because you don't like it.

I don't seem to be the only one. I don't object to every post that I don't like, that is silly. In fact, I can hardly remember ever objecting to a post before (I know you MeFi private eyes will find a thread or two, so go ahead and search if you need something to do). I do object to the link to the video. I am interested in what Matt has to say about it. I would e-mail him, as I wouldn't normally ask through a forum, but I think this discussion could use input from him, becase after all, it is his site. If he wants it to stay, fine, it is his business. I will disagree, but go about my business. No big deal.
posted by adampsyche at 10:44 AM on May 24, 2002

I had a whole huge long screed here. But never mind.

Bottom line, I have no problem with the link. There's far more to the video than carving on Pearl's already-dead body; there's precious little primary source material for any discussion of radical Islamic hatred of America since the Bush administration seems to feel that any exposure to whatever it is those people have to say will turn us all into mini-Lindhs; the post was well-framed; the video is primary source material for the discussion of whether government censorship of it would be justified; we at MeFi generally go all outraged when people discuss a link without reading the link and I fail to see this as an exception; I am grateful for a community like MetaFilter where I can find this video and discuss it with others without having to go to a blood-and-boobies site to do it, because unlike anything else you'd find on Stileproject, this video does have news value and historical value.

"'Indeed, we did know that our images would disturb people,' said Meskauskas. 'If we are afraid to use them now, when will we ever do so? This kind of war is the beginning of something new for America. Maybe it's time to begin to show harsh reality.'"
posted by Sapphireblue at 11:50 AM on May 24, 2002

adampsyche: Glad you find the murder of a friend of my family to be so interesting! My uncle gave the eulegy at his funeral a few months back; he was in tears the entire time. I am sure that he (who was Pearl's boss for years) and the rest of my family and the Pearl family are so excited that the murder of a loved one could spark so much interest with you!

I didn't kill him, and my watching the video doesn't make him deader. I am not ordering the boxed set. I bear no responsibility to your family in this matter whatsoever. But for the record, on the video he seemed to be a charming and intelligent person, someone I would have liked to know.

So, I just want to make sure we understand each other: if a link is posted to a video of say, the graphic death of one of your loved ones, the link can remain because we find it interesting?

The next time one of my loved ones is executed as part of a propoganda film in an international incident in a pre-war environment, you can bet that I will be posting the link to MetaFilter myself.

Incidentally, it wasn't the killing itself I found interesting, it was the editing of the video, the sound effects they chose, the other images they chose, the superimposed printed message to the world at the end, and in general the weird way they tried to use various devices to make themselves seem as evil as possible. Not trying to justify what they did at all, really, but trying to come across like the villains of a bad movie. It makes me wonder about how exactly they wanted people to react, about how movie-obsessed Americans are, about whether those assumptions are right. That's the kind of discussion I'd like to have here, and we do need to see the video to have it, and I think it's exactly the kind of thing that should be linked to MetaFilter.
posted by bingo at 11:51 AM on May 24, 2002

I delete things that are a blight on the site. I imagine what the site would look like to someone hitting it for the first time, and remove things that would give me a negative view of the site.
posted by mathowie at 8:56 PM PST on May 6

I, for one, would be pretty damn disgusted to wander onto the site for the first time and see this linked. But hey, that's just me.

Su, your comparison between the Daniel Pearl video and IsDickCheneyDeadYet.com is laughable at best. The latter is a joke, satire, meant to be funny, and written with an appropriate degree of humor. I doubt the author actually wishes him dead, and even if he did, I'm pretty convinced he wouldn't butcher Dick's head from his body to get his point across.

Oh yeah, and is silence supposed to be the ringing endorsement of a worthwhile thread? It seems silly to call me out for not protesting other posts that I may or may not have seen almost a year ago. You can't infer my feelings one way or another on non-existant posts, so why try? But that's what you're doing when you question my ardor in denouncing pictures of people jumping out of the WTC. (And for the record, I don't think they were worthwhile posts, and that they suffered from the same morbid curiousity of the DP video)

And yes, I'm asking "Why not?" You, on the other hand, are not asking "Why?" You're saying "Delete!" because of your personal beliefs.

No, I am asking why this is worthwhile for MeFi. Seriously. You have a situation where a grieving family asks for the video not to be shown, yet here it is for the public to see.

You have a situation where the video's availability hurts those it most wishes to hurt (the family and friends), and helps those it most wishes to help (radical muslims). And we endorse this? Can you say 'The terrorists have already won'?

rcade's correct -- this is tiresome, and I'm fed up arguing with someone whose moral compass tells her that a video showing a man being decapitated is ok, but a thread discussing a movie opening is not. Say what you will about my apparent inconsistencies, but it's rare I'm able to run across someone whose priorities are so obviously fucked up.

On preview -- I agree, bingo, the most interesting part was the propaganda of the beginning and the canned speech by Pearl. Which is why (and I've said this before) I think the edited version is just as appropriate for the context of revealing the sickness of the kidnappers without showing a disembodied head.

Ah well, that's enough for me. Nothing to see here . . . move along, move along . . .
posted by dogmatic at 12:10 PM on May 24, 2002

Colour me squeamish, but I had no interest on clicking on the link to the video feed. I did find the FBI involvement interesting, as well as the majority of discussion that was enabled by at the story and here in Metatalk by the link being posted.

I've read and intellectually understand the arguments that people are putting forth as to why the video should be available and/or viewed. I disagree, but I understand their point.

My personal take (keeping in mind that I'm basing my opinion on conjecture as I've not seen the footage in question) is that this is a snuff film of a horrid murder and that by releasing it, the horror is not lessened, the murder is not avenged, it is seemingly commercializing and trivializing the death of an American journalist. I find that sad and shocking.


posted by dejah420 at 12:28 PM on May 24, 2002

I didn't kill him, and my watching the video doesn't make him deader. I am not ordering the boxed set. I bear no responsibility to your family in this matter whatsoever.

And your point, please? I think that my comments and points had enough merit, or at least meritted discussion, without you having to make things up for you to argue against.

I damn near wish I hadn't revealed my family's closeness to him, as that simply gives those who disagree with my points and easier, yet sadly unconvincing, target.
posted by adampsyche at 12:38 PM on May 24, 2002

My personal take (keeping in mind that I'm basing my opinion on conjecture as I've not seen the footage in question) is that this is a snuff film of a horrid murder

If you don't see the person being murdered, is it still considered a snuff film? If it is, would the footage of the US soldier being dragged through the streets of Somalia also be a snuff film? Both clips show acts done to a dead body after the fact, not the actual death of the person involved.
posted by stifford at 1:00 PM on May 24, 2002

I, for one, would be pretty damn disgusted to wander onto the site for the first time and see this linked. But hey, that's just me.

I'm disgusted by the way you continue to respond to every criticism by impugning the morals of people who disagree with you. There's a whole kid safe world of links out there for you to explore, Ryan. Maybe it's time you left the adult content to the grown-ups.
posted by rcade at 1:11 PM on May 24, 2002

I feel that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

There's no rule forbidding linking to that video, but in the end it seems kind of tasteless. Remember when Miguel linked to a child pornography site in MetaTalk a few months back? People were upset about that too, but technically he didn't break any rules.

But the key is to know your audience. Rotten, Stile, etc have an audience that craves that kind of stuff. Metafilter (in general) doesn't. Not that someone couldn't appreciate both--but just like I wouldn't go to Stile for intelligent conversation, I don't think of MeFi as the place to go for links to murder videos, no matter how relevant they are to discussion.

Imagine if you had come across a random individual's blog with that link on it. Without knowing who that person was, what would your first impressions be?

Did plemjr think that linking to the video wasn't going to create a controversy?
posted by turaho at 1:18 PM on May 24, 2002

rcade: You can continue to call me every name in the book

I didn't call anybody a name. Wait, did I? I'm not worked up over this at all, I have no desire to be flip. Unless your name isn't Rogers, in which case, sorry about that.

Your argument about people seeing source material being important to their understanding of the world is a good one. Again, it's funigble, as turaho points out, because the kiddie porn link was removed on the very assumption that the topic could be discussed without viewing the source material.
posted by raaka at 2:01 PM on May 24, 2002

Or, wait it wasn't removed, everyone decided the topic could be discussed but the material wasn't worth linking. The topic post was a bit different context, definitly.
posted by raaka at 2:07 PM on May 24, 2002

Four assumptions that you make, dogmatic, with which I disagree:

You have a situation where a grieving family asks for the video not to be shown, yet here it is for the public to see.

1. That the family has a right to decide what is appropriate and inappropriate for a political and historical record of this sort.

You have a situation where the video's availability hurts those it most wishes to hurt (the family and friends)

2. That this is whom it is directed at, which seems ridiculous to me. This is a political tool, not a personal attack on Pearl's family.

I, for one, would be pretty damn disgusted to wander onto the site for the first time and see this linked. But hey, that's just me.

3. That this would be a common reaction, though it is no doubt shared by some. Many might well be quite impressed to stumble on a site with intelligent and nuanced discussion of this record and its context and ramifications (which you will certainly NOT find on rotten.com and the ilk).

they suffered from the same morbid curiousity

4. That curiosity--even of the morbid flavor--is necessarily a bad thing. Without curiosity, there can be no investigation, no study, no learning, and no understanding. And understanding is something that we ALL need a great deal more of.
posted by rushmc at 2:11 PM on May 24, 2002

it is seemingly commercializing and trivializing the death of an American journalist.

In what way? It is not "commercializing" it, because no one is selling (or buying) it. And I definitely don't see how making something available in order to increase public awareness, understanding, and discussion in any way "trivializes" it. Be squeamish if you must and turn away, but don't seek to hide the truth from those who wish to see it.
posted by rushmc at 2:15 PM on May 24, 2002

There's no rule forbidding linking to that video, but in the end it seems kind of tasteless.

And you are seriously suggesting that the fact that some people will consider someone making a particular link "kind of tasteless" warrants limiting access to the direct source of what the entire post was about? If the post is judged okay, and the relevant link is available, it seems hypocritical in the extreme to avoid including it.

I don't come to Metafilter to listen to people blither inanely about their vague opinions; I come here for informed, reasoned discussion. My understanding of Metafilter is that it was created to facilitate discovery of and access to links online. I fail to see why an exception should be made to that directive because the particular topic at hand happens to be distateful.
posted by rushmc at 2:25 PM on May 24, 2002

Take a look at all the ads on ConsumptionJunction surrounding the link to the video, and tell me again that they're trying to "increase public awareness, understanding, and discussion" and not just trying to bump up their hit counter.

Don't get me wrong, rushmc, I think you have great reasons why CJ should be allowed to host the file, but do you think it was in keeping with MeFi's character and goals to link to that page? The average MeFi user knows how to use Google and including the link only served to taint what could have been an interesting discussion.
posted by turaho at 2:29 PM on May 24, 2002

does anyone have a link to the edited version?
posted by mdn at 2:47 PM on May 24, 2002

I have a strong opinion about this kind of request:

Do not, under any circumstances, ever decide what I should and should not see or hear based on your own sensibilities. Your tastefulness doesn't apply to me and to presume otherwise is an affront.

If you don't like something, don't post it. If someone else posts it and you don't like it, it's not your concern. Just move along.

(In other words: "What mischief said.")
posted by majick at 3:07 PM on May 24, 2002

Err. Except, of course, with a working link.
posted by majick at 3:08 PM on May 24, 2002

Take a look at all the ads on ConsumptionJunction surrounding the link to the video, and tell me again that they're trying to "increase public awareness, understanding, and discussion" and not just trying to bump up their hit counter.

As someone who visits Consumption Junction semi-frequently, I can attest that they have those ads around EVERY LINK they post, in every category. They didn't place extra big-tittied barely legal teen ads around the Pearl video link trying to make a few extra nickels. If nothing ever happened to Daniel Pearl, that sight and those same ads would still all be there. So I don't think they hosted the clip "just to bump up their hit counter". Maybe the reason all the more "extreme" websites are the only ones hosting the clip is because most other sites are too politically correct to do it.

As far as the link being on Metafilter, It wasn't linked in some crude or distasteful way (it even said "not safe for work" next to it.) It provided information on a topic being discussed in the thread, so I don't feel it violated the character or goals of MeFi at all. And considering people still believe that the video shows the actual murder of Daniel Pearl which it does not, maybe more people should view it.
posted by stifford at 3:28 PM on May 24, 2002

Take a look at all the ads on ConsumptionJunction surrounding the link to the video, and tell me again that they're trying to "increase public awareness, understanding, and discussion"

But I didn't tell you that...I reserved that function for Metafilter and impugned the apparent motives of "rotten.com and their ilk," which would include Consumption Junction.
posted by rushmc at 3:35 PM on May 24, 2002

Dogmatic: Stop blending my arguments. The Dick Cheney question refers to your seeming demand that everything posted have some benefit to the community, and that everything be respectful. I wasn't making any comparison, but since you bring it up, what if IsDanDead? were also written with humor, etc, as you describe? You've said nothing to contradict me there.

You can't infer my feelings one way or another on non-existant posts, so why try?
Um...I didn't? But why can you infer a righteous MeFi moral barometer from those same non-existant posts?

rcade's correct -- this is tiresome, and I'm fed up arguing with someone whose moral compass tells her
Him, last time I checked.

that a video showing a man being decapitated is ok, but a thread discussing a movie opening is not.
My irritation at the movie post had nothing to do with my morality(or rather lack thereof). It was irritation, plain and simple. See below re: making assumptions about and misplacing my morality.

Say what you will about my apparent inconsistencies,
Which you continue to avoid addressing.

but it's rare I'm able to run across someone whose priorities are so obviously fucked up.

Don't presume to know my priorities, or my a/morality. I am constantly amazed at the way you keep commenting on my moral judgement. Please go back and read my comments and tell me where I've made any sort of statement that would hint at any such thing. All I'm arguing is that information should be freely available, which is not a statement of morality. Seriously. Either you find a moral statement from me in this entire thread, or you drop it now.
The only times I have even approached morality have been to question your inability to act in what I consider consistency with the beliefs you're trying to ram down our throats.

Bored, and done with this, so I'll close by saying that I'm pretty damn sure Matt will leave the link in place. If you can't understand why, then it's more telling of you than of him or any other user who agrees with it. I'll be checking in to see if you edit your post, just cuz I'm curious.
posted by Su at 4:34 PM on May 24, 2002

As an adult, I have the ability to decide whether or not to view a video. Especially when the link has no attempt to hide the material. If I do view it, that's my choice. If i don't, that too is my choice. Your morality plays no part in my decision, and nor should it. It's called Free Will. I decide what I will for myself.

You think it's wrong to link to this video? Ignore the link. I get tired of I/P discussions (though they have died down) I skip the link and discussion.

The whole argument about whether or not the video can help you understand the situation: Yes, yes it can. Don't say that you can understand just horrible it is by imagining. It didn't matter how much history I knew, how much I learned or how many pictures I saw. When I walked through Dachuo it gave me a better understanding of life in a concentration camp than reading a hundred books would have. Never belittle the ability of the senses to make a concept more understandable.

Get off your high horse. If we were discussing books being banned in libraries you'd object and say that's not right. Nobody should control what other people read. Well, the idea that some books are suitable for bookshelves is just the same as saying that link isn't fit for Metafilter.
posted by Apoch at 4:42 PM on May 24, 2002

Oh, for the love of god, I asked before if the whole censorship subject be dropped, but I guess it can't. This is not about whether you can or can't watch the fucking video. The issue raised is whether it belongs on Metafilter. Stop it with the "You can't tell me what to watch!" crap, that is NOT what it is about.

If you feel that it has a place on Metafilter, that is fine, I respect your opinion, and you should respect mine. But please, this "Wa wah, you can't tell me what to watch! What are you a book burner?" crap is getting old. It doesn't apply. Case in point:

Do not, under any circumstances, ever decide what I should and should not see or hear based on your own sensibilities.

Uh, no one ever did! No one ever decided, or tried to decide, what you should or should not see! The issue is whether it belongs on Metafilter or not!

In any event, it is up to Matt, becuase it is his Web site. And whatever he decides or had decided, I respect that.
posted by adampsyche at 4:49 PM on May 24, 2002

The issue raised is whether it belongs on Metafilter.

Nope: could Matt please delete the link to the Daniel Pearl video
It's a request for censorship. Should the video have been put there in the first place? That matter is irrelevant and also, entirely a synthetic judgement. Dogmatic is attempting to enforce (unsuccessfully, since we have no power) his or her moral structure on Metafilter under the guise of decency.
posted by j.edwards at 4:54 PM on May 24, 2002

I said: I didn't kill him, and my watching the video doesn't make him deader. I am not ordering the boxed set. I bear no responsibility to your family in this matter whatsoever.

adampsyche responded: And your point, please? I think that my comments and points had enough merit, or at least meritted discussion, without you having to make things up for you to argue against.

My point is that it's ridiculous for you to attack me for finding the video interesting, citing as your reason that the man killed was a close friend of your family's. These things I made up (i.e. that you might have thought by watching the video, I made him deader) represent my effort to show you how ridiculous the connection you're making is, by presenting some of the only ways I can think of that you might have made it.
posted by bingo at 7:20 PM on May 24, 2002

I asked earlier if anyone had the edited version (I looked for it at rotten.com but didn't find it) but when no one responded i thought i'd try watching the unedited version: but all those damn porno ads and "cock stuffed snatch" links surrounding it really just sickened me. I also got another spam ad for "rape sex" today, all of which combined to make me feel pretty hopeless about the reasons people watch this stuff. I'm not saying it should be banned but I am glad people feel a need to examine the motivations behind the post. I'm also not saying there are simple reasons - most people probably feel a combination of things in response to knowing this is out there, and morbid curiosity is probably often among them, even if it's only a small part of the mix.
posted by mdn at 11:12 AM on May 25, 2002

thank god no one's eating kittens.
posted by jcterminal at 7:58 PM on May 25, 2002

I have choose not to watch the video.

I have also choose not to watch slaughterhouse films. Or unedited footage of the senate floor. Or videos of fighting homeless.

But if newsworthy footage of killing cows, making laws, urban violence, or terrorist activity is on the web, I would hope that Mefi would link to it and discuss it.


posted by halcyon at 8:39 PM on May 25, 2002

Ah, the thread doth flicker, soon to flicker out...mine cue...

[MetaFilter*] is bereft of every scene, open to everything in spite of himself, living in the greatest confusion. He is himself obscene, the obscene prey of the world's obscenity. What characterizes him is less the loss of the real, the light years of estrangement from the real, the pathos of distance and radical separation, as is commonly said: but, very much to the contrary, the absolute proximity, the total instantaneity of things, the feeling of no defense, no retreat. It is the end of interiority and intimacy, the overexposure and transparence of the world which traverses him without obstacle. He can no longer produce the limits of his own being, can no longer play nor stage himself, can no longer produce himself as mirror. He is now only a pure screen, a switching center for all the networks of influence.
--Baudrillard

(*originally, 'The schizo')
posted by Opus Dark at 9:03 PM on May 25, 2002

Reading Baudrillard is like eating a steaming pile of spoiled Roquefort cheese chased down with a generous swallow of warm Mateuse, followed by a punch in the stomach. Or as a friend of mine put it, his writing is like a slap in the face with a limp dick.

On second thought, even the limp dick is more pleasant.
posted by evanizer at 9:46 PM on May 25, 2002

Point and game!
posted by Opus Dark at 10:49 PM on May 25, 2002

It was worth reading all this tripe just for your [refreshingly OT] literary critique, evanizer. thankyou.
posted by elphTeq at 12:10 AM on May 26, 2002

While the thread might be dying, the topic isn't. It's just that someone decided on a change of venue.

And to address one thing, since I'm sure a comment from me there will be summarily deleted, there is yet another comment on my morality for a statement that was devoid of it and had nothing to do with morals in the first place.
I don't recall suggesting the video was less taboo than kitties, but was rather stating that based on his assumption that the link existing makes us look like assholes, a lot of other things could be assumed about us in regards to any other given link on this site.

Consistent with his agenda, Ryan chooses to zero in on a comment by Rcade quoting "cheezy LBJ biopic" but leaving out the fact the reason it was brought up was that the biopic included a scene of a Vietnamese man being executed.

On the morbid curiosity front, why does Ryan(Dogmatic) know so much about the availability, subject matter and production schedules of snuff films? And where did he learn it? I didn't see any supporting links, and there was nothing in the thread regarding this. Must've done some serious research. All I've ever been able to find, apart from wild speculation by conspiracy theorists or people refusing to provide support for their arguments is that the FBI has been looking for a very long time but has never found one.

With a prominent mention by Dan Rather and a growing presence on the Internet, the producers of the video are reaching a much larger audience than they ever could have imagined.

Yup. Dan Rather talking about the video is helping the reach a larger audience. But that link on your site pointing to a place with a direct link to the video itself isn't. Um...okay.
posted by Su at 2:12 AM on May 26, 2002

Oh fer chrissakes, it was no more than poorly written satire. And like the news media I was parodying, I wrote a snappy hed and lead-in that had little to do with the rest of the passage, zeroed in on comments out of context, and provided a half-assed history without even a modicum of supporting info or links. (I probably know little more about snuff films than you, but it sure sounds authoritative, don't it?) Anyway, I never claimed to tell the whole story or be 'fair and balanced,' but it surprises me you didn't realize (or decided to ignore) that this was stylistic choice.

And just for the record, no, I wouldn't have deleted your comment as long as it wasn't an out-and-out flame. But I understand your reason for arguing against my post here, considering MeFi provides a larger audience for you to complain to. I highly doubt anyone's really that interested anymore, tho. This argument is so like two days ago.
posted by dogmatic at 2:44 AM on May 26, 2002

pathetic.
posted by crunchland at 2:48 AM on May 26, 2002

This argument is so like two days ago.

So this was really just the cause De Jur, and not something you actually feel deeply about?
posted by Mick at 9:01 AM on May 26, 2002

cause 'du jour,' you mean?

no it's not, but everyone here has already read all i have to say on it, and i doubt they want to read anymore. the half-life of any metatalk thread is about twelve hours, and continuing this conversation further is like howling into the wind. in the middle of a desert. alone.

besides, should i have to defend myself and a post on my own site simply because Su apparently didn't get the joke?
posted by dogmatic at 9:40 AM on May 26, 2002

Jokes about dead people aren't funny, Dogmatic. Frankly, I'm appalled.
posted by Doug at 11:31 AM on May 26, 2002

Poynter.org on ethics for journalists. Contains some rather useful questions for determining where to draw the line on depictions of graphic violence.

"Seek the truth and report it as fully as possible, act independently, and minimize harm."
posted by sheauga at 7:41 PM on May 26, 2002

"Jokes about dead people aren't funny"

liar. jokes about the dead are ALWAYS funny. and if they have a problem, they can come talk to me about it.
posted by jcterminal at 10:44 PM on May 26, 2002