• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is 9/11 footage acceptable but not other videos of mass murders?

C

Crusader13

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2019
Messages
893
Reaction score
212
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've been following the Christchurch shooting case closely and I'm almost appalled at the level of special treatment it seems to be getting. People are being jailed and fined for owning or distributing the video of the massacre. Websites which host it are being heavily targeted by law enforcement agencies, internet service providers, the media, and Google - all playing the part in making sure the video can't be seen by anyone.

Surely everyone can see that there's a massive double-standard here given that there was never any fuss kicked up about footage of the 9/11 attacks taking place. You could make an entire volume of documentaries using all the footage of that much, much, much worse attack. It's commonplace for media or movies to mindlessly show footage of planes hitting the tower or the towers collapsing - the exact moment when thousands of people would've died instantly. No bans, no outrage that YouTube has showed the video hundreds of millions of times, nobody demanding all websites be shut down to prevent similar attacks being motivated or to show respect for the victims. Nothing even close to the level of outrage that has taken place over the Christchurch footage.

One can't help but feel that this case is getting special treatment because of the circumstances - ie, someone from a group the Left despises killing a bunch of people that the Left loves. Surely we should hold the same standard across all attacks then? It's not hard at all to find footage of regular, mostly white people being murdered en masse in attacks yet there is no outrage.
 
Crusader13 said:
I've been following the Christchurch shooting case closely and I'm almost appalled at the level of special treatment it seems to be getting. People are being jailed and fined for owning or distributing the video of the massacre. Websites which host it are being heavily targeted by law enforcement agencies, internet service providers, the media, and Google - all playing the part in making sure the video can't be seen by anyone.

Surely everyone can see that there's a massive double-standard here given that there was never any fuss kicked up about footage of the 9/11 attacks taking place. You could make an entire volume of documentaries using all the footage of that much, much, much worse attack. It's commonplace for media or movies to mindlessly show footage of planes hitting the tower or the towers collapsing - the exact moment when thousands of people would've died instantly. No bans, no outrage that YouTube has showed the video hundreds of millions of times, nobody demanding all websites be shut down to prevent similar attacks being motivated or to show respect for the victims. Nothing even close to the level of outrage that has taken place over the Christchurch footage.

One can't help but feel that this case is getting special treatment because of the circumstances - ie, someone from a group the Left despises killing a bunch of people that the Left loves. Surely we should hold the same standard across all attacks then? It's not hard at all to find footage of regular, mostly white people being murdered en masse in attacks yet there is no outrage.
Click to expand...

A ballpark answer here would be the graphic nature of the shooting vs. the plane into a building - pedestrian by comparison. The A-bombs in 1945 Japan, perfectly ok to see even though we know thousands are killed instantly as the mushroom cloud grows. The difference - we can't actually see them burn.
 
Crusader13 said:
I've been following the Christchurch shooting case closely and I'm almost appalled at the level of special treatment it seems to be getting. People are being jailed and fined for owning or distributing the video of the massacre. Websites which host it are being heavily targeted by law enforcement agencies, internet service providers, the media, and Google - all playing the part in making sure the video can't be seen by anyone.

Surely everyone can see that there's a massive double-standard here given that there was never any fuss kicked up about footage of the 9/11 attacks taking place. You could make an entire volume of documentaries using all the footage of that much, much, much worse attack. It's commonplace for media or movies to mindlessly show footage of planes hitting the tower or the towers collapsing - the exact moment when thousands of people would've died instantly. No bans, no outrage that YouTube has showed the video hundreds of millions of times, nobody demanding all websites be shut down to prevent similar attacks being motivated or to show respect for the victims. Nothing even close to the level of outrage that has taken place over the Christchurch footage.

One can't help but feel that this case is getting special treatment because of the circumstances - ie, someone from a group the Left despises killing a bunch of people that the Left loves. Surely we should hold the same standard across all attacks then? It's not hard at all to find footage of regular, mostly white people being murdered en masse in attacks yet there is no outrage.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to watch people being shot to death? If not, why the outrage?
 
Invasion of victim privacy. Videos of mass shootings typically are close enough to individual subjects, that their identities can be discerned. Not so what the far off shots of people jumping from the world trade center.
 
snakestretcher said:
Do you really want to watch people being shot to death? If not, why the outrage?
Click to expand...

I believe the government shouldn't pick and choose which violent videos are OK and which ones aren't. This is an institution we are supposed to trust and they are proving that they'll only act on taking down information if it's convenient to their wider cause. It's hard not to be outraged at that given that it's a telltale sign of a corrupted institution.

I don't see how it's any different to WWII Germany where the government probably outlawed videos of Nazis being killed yet decided it was OK to broadcast and watch videos of Jews being killed. It's the same.
 
Could be about not giving any notoriety to the perp or the possibility of triggering others.


And yes, given the graphic nature of Hollywood movies, I'd say people do want to see people getting shot, bombed, killed in general.
 
Crusader13 said:
I believe the government shouldn't pick and choose which violent videos are OK and which ones aren't. This is an institution we are supposed to trust and they are proving that they'll only act on taking down information if it's convenient to their wider cause. It's hard not to be outraged at that given that it's a telltale sign of a corrupted institution.

I don't see how it's any different to WWII Germany where the government probably outlawed videos of Nazis being killed yet decided it was OK to broadcast and watch videos of Jews being killed. It's the same.
Click to expand...

You evidently don't understand what sensitivity for the feelings of the bereaved means. If a member of my family was murdered I wouldn't want to have to see it on the nine o'clock news. Would you?
 
Crusader13 said:
I've been following the Christchurch shooting case closely and I'm almost appalled at the level of special treatment it seems to be getting. People are being jailed and fined for owning or distributing the video of the massacre. Websites which host it are being heavily targeted by law enforcement agencies, internet service providers, the media, and Google - all playing the part in making sure the video can't be seen by anyone.

Surely everyone can see that there's a massive double-standard here given that there was never any fuss kicked up about footage of the 9/11 attacks taking place. You could make an entire volume of documentaries using all the footage of that much, much, much worse attack. It's commonplace for media or movies to mindlessly show footage of planes hitting the tower or the towers collapsing - the exact moment when thousands of people would've died instantly. No bans, no outrage that YouTube has showed the video hundreds of millions of times, nobody demanding all websites be shut down to prevent similar attacks being motivated or to show respect for the victims. Nothing even close to the level of outrage that has taken place over the Christchurch footage.

One can't help but feel that this case is getting special treatment because of the circumstances - ie, someone from a group the Left despises killing a bunch of people that the Left loves. Surely we should hold the same standard across all attacks then? It's not hard at all to find footage of regular, mostly white people being murdered en masse in attacks yet there is no outrage.
Click to expand...

You state people are being fined and jailed for distribution of Christchurch footage...

Can you provide examples of this happening?
 
snakestretcher said:
You evidently don't understand what sensitivity for the feelings of the bereaved means. If a member of my family was murdered I wouldn't want to have to see it on the nine o'clock news. Would you?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't, but neither do the thousands of other people who see footage of their loved ones dying on the 9 o'clock news everyday. You make a valid point but its never applied or followed consistently enough to be taken seriously.

Other examples include the Boston Marathon bombing - a case where the media has shown footage of the explosion in a crowded area where you could clearly see the faces of the victims and their ensuing agony. Videos of this are still quite easily attainable on YouTube, no websites or outlets were prosecuted for distributing it and there were no cases of individuals being fined for showing it under risk that it might motivate similar attacks. It's another blatant double standard. No sympathy for the victims, the footage clearly shows terror and death of identifiable people and can easily be used as terrorist propaganda. Nobody cares. It seems to only be an issue when it relates to white terrorist propaganda being distributed.

There are also thousands of detailed videos of suicides that can easily be found online, even on mainstream platforms. Granted this isn't murder but its death of someone who may have been under duress or sudden pressure to take their own life. Its sickening footage that does no favor to preserving respect for mortality. The same logic could be used to criminalise this footage as well.
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
No, I wouldn't, but neither do the thousands of other people who see footage of their loved ones dying on the 9 o'clock news everyday. You make a valid point but its never applied or followed consistently enough to be taken seriously.

Other examples include the Boston Marathon bombing - a case where the media has shown footage of the explosion in a crowded area where you could clearly see the faces of the victims and their ensuing agony. Videos of this are still quite easily attainable on YouTube, no websites or outlets were prosecuted for distributing it and there were no cases of individuals being fined for showing it under risk that it might motivate similar attacks. It's another blatant double standard. No sympathy for the victims, the footage clearly shows terror and death of identifiable people and can easily be used as terrorist propaganda. Nobody cares. It seems to only be an issue when it relates to white terrorist propaganda being distributed.
Click to expand...

The law stands in New Zealand and they enforce it accordingly if it is broken in New Zealand, by New Zealanders distributing or sharing prohibited social media content. They don't have control over what social media chooses to show. I don't see the double standard.
 
Crusader13 said:
I've been following the Christchurch shooting case closely and I'm almost appalled at the level of special treatment it seems to be getting. People are being jailed and fined for owning or distributing the video of the massacre. Websites which host it are being heavily targeted by law enforcement agencies, internet service providers, the media, and Google - all playing the part in making sure the video can't be seen by anyone.

Surely everyone can see that there's a massive double-standard here given that there was never any fuss kicked up about footage of the 9/11 attacks taking place. You could make an entire volume of documentaries using all the footage of that much, much, much worse attack. It's commonplace for media or movies to mindlessly show footage of planes hitting the tower or the towers collapsing - the exact moment when thousands of people would've died instantly. No bans, no outrage that YouTube has showed the video hundreds of millions of times, nobody demanding all websites be shut down to prevent similar attacks being motivated or to show respect for the victims. Nothing even close to the level of outrage that has taken place over the Christchurch footage.

One can't help but feel that this case is getting special treatment because of the circumstances - ie, someone from a group the Left despises killing a bunch of people that the Left loves. Surely we should hold the same standard across all attacks then? It's not hard at all to find footage of regular, mostly white people being murdered en masse in attacks yet there is no outrage.
Click to expand...

Commonwealth countries basically don't honor free speech.

This is the direction the US is heading in if liberals - useful puppets of the plutocracy - have their way.
 
snakestretcher said:
The law stands in New Zealand and they enforce it accordingly if it is broken in New Zealand, by New Zealanders distributing or sharing prohibited social media content. They don't have control over what social media chooses to show. I don't see the double standard.
Click to expand...

It's not just about the NZ government. It's the mainstream media and internet platforms in general. Search for the Christchurch footage and you will not find it. Globally, internet companies have restricted access to websites that show it. Google has removed it from coming up in any search results and also removed websites that showed it previously from their platform entirely. It has be deemed globally unacceptable to distribute footage of this attack. Google will not allow it in any country. Network providers in other countries outside of NZ have also been pressured to remove the footage or be threatened with being shut down.

This can easily be done for footage of other attacks but it's not. It's selective outrage.
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
It's not just about the NZ government. It's the mainstream media and internet platforms in general. Search for the Christchurch footage and you will not find it. Globally, internet companies have restricted access to websites that show it. Google has removed it from coming up in any search results and also removed websites that showed it previously from their platform entirely. It has be deemed globally unacceptable to distribute footage of this attack. Google will not allow it in any country. Network providers in other countries outside of NZ have also been pressured to remove the footage.

This can easily be done for footage of other attacks but it's not.
Click to expand...

I agree it should be done, but New Zealand has no control over other nations. NZ evidently exerted enough pressure in order to have that content removed; it's up to other governments to follow suit.

Facebook has removed 1.5 million copies of the mosque attack video. New Zealand says it needs to do more - CNN
 
Last edited:
snakestretcher said:
I agree it should be done, but New Zealand has no control over other nations. NZ evidently exerted enough pressure in order to have that content removed; it's up to other governments to follow suit.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not talking about New Zealand. I'm talking about the global movement involved. Google has been very vocal about removing the footage from their platform, creating a tracking algorithm that removes it any time someone tries to upload it. They are not doing this for legal reasons. They are doing it because they want to stop the broadcast of videos showing Muslims being killed. I'm just wondering why they don't have a problem with their platform being used to show videos of white people being killed.

The same goes for Internet service providers in other countries who've also blocked access to any website which doesn't comply with their demands to remove the footage. Why don't they have a problem with the websites that show white people being killed?

Same goes for the global media discussing how sickening the footage is and how important it is for it to be blocked because it could promote similar attacks. Why don't they show similar outrage of all the videos of white people being killed?

It's not just about the laws in one country. Its about the selective outrage from the institutions that are responsible for shaping our laws and our access to information or content. We are moving to a world where tech companies and the media will be able to decide which content we can see and which content we can't see based on their own commercial or private interests.
 
Crusader13 said:
Again, I'm not talking about New Zealand. I'm talking about the global movement involved. Google has been very vocal about removing the footage from their platform, creating a tracking algorithm that removes it any time someone tries to upload it. They are not doing this for legal reasons. They are doing it because they want to stop the broadcast of videos showing Muslims being killed. I'm just wondering why they don't have a problem with their platform being used to show videos of white people being killed.

The same goes for Internet service providers in other countries who've also blocked access to any website which doesn't comply with their demands to remove the footage. Why don't they have a problem with the websites that show white people being killed?

Same goes for the global media discussing how sickening the footage is and how important it is for it to be blocked because it could promote similar attacks. Why don't they show similar outrage of all the videos of white people being killed?

It's not just about the laws in one country. Its about the selective outrage from the institutions that are responsible for shaping our laws and our access to information or content. We are moving to a world where tech companies and the media will be able to decide which content we can see and which content we can't see based on their own commercial or private interests.
Click to expand...

I don't see a problem. If governments, like ours, choose to ban tobacco advertising, for example, for not only the health of the population, but also the financial health of the institutions having to deal with cancers, emphysema, COPD etc., that is surely a good thing.
Tiny New Zealand publicly pressured Google to have the content removed and Google responded. Other countries are quite capable of doing the same-especially powerful giants like the US. But of course any proposed law would be opposed by the 'free speech' devotees.
Besides which Zuckerberg is said to have appointed 14,000 human moderators who don't have to rely on algorithms to weed out unacceptable content.
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
I've been following the Christchurch shooting case closely and I'm almost appalled at the level of special treatment it seems to be getting. People are being jailed and fined for owning or distributing the video of the massacre. Websites which host it are being heavily targeted by law enforcement agencies, internet service providers, the media, and Google - all playing the part in making sure the video can't be seen by anyone.

Surely everyone can see that there's a massive double-standard here given that there was never any fuss kicked up about footage of the 9/11 attacks taking place. You could make an entire volume of documentaries using all the footage of that much, much, much worse attack. It's commonplace for media or movies to mindlessly show footage of planes hitting the tower or the towers collapsing - the exact moment when thousands of people would've died instantly. No bans, no outrage that YouTube has showed the video hundreds of millions of times, nobody demanding all websites be shut down to prevent similar attacks being motivated or to show respect for the victims. Nothing even close to the level of outrage that has taken place over the Christchurch footage.

One can't help but feel that this case is getting special treatment because of the circumstances - ie, someone from a group the Left despises killing a bunch of people that the Left loves. Surely we should hold the same standard across all attacks then? It's not hard at all to find footage of regular, mostly white people being murdered en masse in attacks yet there is no outrage.
Click to expand...

There are significant differences between the two circumstances. The 9/11 attacks happened in public, in the middle of the largest city in the US. Even if the government wanted to ban all footage of the attack it would be impossible to do so. There are simply too many people with their own videos of it. Christchurch, on the other hand, was a much more localized, small scale affair, comparatively speaking, and not nearly as much footage of it exists. This makes it much easier to suppress, which is likely done both to protect the dignity of the victims and to prevent glorification of the murders.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Commonwealth countries basically don't honor free speech.

This is the direction the US is heading in if liberals - useful puppets of the plutocracy - have their way.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's so horrible living in the tyrannical, oppressive state of New Zealand. God forbid...
 
3leftsdoo said:
Commonwealth countries basically don't honor free speech.

This is the direction the US is heading in if liberals - useful puppets of the plutocracy - have their way.
Click to expand...

Would you want the murder of a family member broadcast around the world? There's responsible free speech and then there's human decency. Do you understand what they mean?
 
Crusader13 said:
I've been following the Christchurch shooting case closely and I'm almost appalled at the level of special treatment it seems to be getting. People are being jailed and fined for owning or distributing the video of the massacre. Websites which host it are being heavily targeted by law enforcement agencies, internet service providers, the media, and Google - all playing the part in making sure the video can't be seen by anyone.

Surely everyone can see that there's a massive double-standard here given that there was never any fuss kicked up about footage of the 9/11 attacks taking place. You could make an entire volume of documentaries using all the footage of that much, much, much worse attack. It's commonplace for media or movies to mindlessly show footage of planes hitting the tower or the towers collapsing - the exact moment when thousands of people would've died instantly. No bans, no outrage that YouTube has showed the video hundreds of millions of times, nobody demanding all websites be shut down to prevent similar attacks being motivated or to show respect for the victims. Nothing even close to the level of outrage that has taken place over the Christchurch footage.

One can't help but feel that this case is getting special treatment because of the circumstances - ie, someone from a group the Left despises killing a bunch of people that the Left loves. Surely we should hold the same standard across all attacks then? It's not hard at all to find footage of regular, mostly white people being murdered en masse in attacks yet there is no outrage.
Click to expand...

You make an interesting observation, and ask a thought-provoking question.

In the end, the public perceptions are manipulated in many ways for many desired effects.

I never watched any of the Christchurch stuff for a variety of reasons, mostly because I do not enjoy watching people get shot, in the theater or in the nightly news. But the double standard you raise is most interesting.

The annual media orgasm as it re-tells the 911 story is just a week away. It seems the media really enjoys that, or maybe it's just trying to drive home an illusion in the minds of younger recipients. The History Channel is going to tell us how Air Force One was a "sitting duck" on 911. Get out the popcorn! :lol:
 
Thoreau72 said:
You make an interesting observation, and ask a thought-provoking question.

In the end, the public perceptions are manipulated in many ways for many desired effects.

I never watched any of the Christchurch stuff for a variety of reasons, mostly because I do not enjoy watching people get shot, in the theater or in the nightly news. But the double standard you raise is most interesting.

The annual media orgasm as it re-tells the 911 story is just a week away. It seems the media really enjoys that, or maybe it's just trying to drive home an illusion in the minds of younger recipients. The History Channel is going to tell us how Air Force One was a "sitting duck" on 911. Get out the popcorn! :lol:
Click to expand...

Conspiracy Theory forum is over there - - - - >
 
snakestretcher said:
I don't see a problem. If governments, like ours, choose to ban tobacco advertising, for example, for not only the health of the population, but also the financial health of the institutions having to deal with cancers, emphysema, COPD etc., that is surely a good thing.
Tiny New Zealand publicly pressured Google to have the content removed and Google responded. Other countries are quite capable of doing the same-especially powerful giants like the US. But of course any proposed law would be opposed by the 'free speech' devotees.
Besides which Zuckerberg is said to have appointed 14,000 human moderators who don't have to rely on algorithms to weed out unacceptable content.
Click to expand...

You're still missing the point. Google and Facebook do not need New Zealand. New Zealand has no global power or even market force to worry megabrands like them.

Google and Facebook removed the footage at their own discretion. It wasn't because of government intervention. It was because they deemed the content dangerous and insensitive and didn't want their platform used for such material. These sentiments were shared by other companies who have a role in controlling global information, mainly Internet service providers and the media who undertook their own methods to ban the content from their platforms. The question remains why these platforms don't have a problem with similar content being shown of other people being killed. It's a double standard.

The NZ government also has no problem with the widespread distribution and broadcast of footage of other attacks. NZ has only taken legal action against people who show footage of Muslims being killed. Footage of 911, the Boston marathon bombings, and other violent attacks have been easily accessible there for decades without government intervention. It's only when it's footage of a special group of victims that they decide to step in and stop people from watching it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom