You certainly are talking about a very grey area. While I think there are videos that show a death that are more tolerable than others,(think the skydiving accident from yesterday) I don't think there is a good way to define it since the definitions are based on someones opinion. I think the easiest is a no human deaths or allow human deaths. I for one don't want to watch someone die and really have no intention of watching said vids, even when it's an animal I don't really want to watch it. One exception was the leopard that killed the monkey then took care of her baby, that was pretty damn moving. Other than the clear cut black and white, it's just up to the members to blog it and discuss any video that appears to cross the line.

I believe we should leave this up to the community to decide on a video itself and not get into the sticky situation of definitions about what constitutes snuff and what doesn't.

Am usually resilient towards war posts and give them credence because of their political importance, but many war videos are just that, war videos. And sometimes after a long day the last thing I would want to see is dead civilians/soldiers/people amongst kitten videos.

Maybe there could be a serious invocation or something?

I like the idea of the serious invocation, or something along those lines (would be helpful for buzzkill documentaries too- I likes em, but somedays I just want kittens)

Anyway, about the snuff. I have always felt that snuff videos were, by definition, filmed with the outright intention from the beginning of capturing a death on film... the motivation of course being titillation or to somehow profit from such activities.

Wikipedia's article on the subject addresses such problems of definition and comes to somewhat the same conclusion:

"The term snuff film does not, at least currently, have a clear definition. Neither the Motion Picture Association of America, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, nor any U.S. agency have put forth legislation or terminology that would define the term "snuff film" authoritatively. Some possible definitions include; a number of acts (murder of animals, faked deaths, accidental deaths, suicides, murders) which are filmed and only later distributed for commercial gain and/or entertainment. Some definitions state that snuff films must be pornographic in nature.[1]

The most common definition of a snuff film is of a motion picture showing the actual murder of a human being that is produced, perpetrated, and distributed solely for the purpose of profit. This definition thereby excludes recordings of murders caught by accident, and videotapes of actual murders that were never intended to be released as entertainment films. Given these criteria, the existence of snuff films is highly questionable, and commercial snuff films have long been relegated by skeptics to the realm of urban legend and moral panic. To date, no film generally accepted as fitting this definition has been found.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film

I agree with this notion... so therefore, accidents, assassinations, and wartime casualties do not fall into the definition of snuff... which then brings up the debate of just what it is people do not want on the sift. Is it all deaths on film? Is it just the ones that seem highly exploitive in nature?

I personally would draw a line at videos that were filmed with the intent of capturing a murder, and somehow profiting from it... vids of terrorists beheading journalists would therefore fall into this category, and I, for one, would not want them on the sift. But I believe there are many instances of people being killed on film that have great historical and political significance, and although I do realize that a great many people who use this site predominately use it as a way to catch the latest family guy/colbert top 15, there are also many of us who see the sift as having great potential as a means to aggregate and organize the video content/culture of the internet. So, therefore, by defining 'snuff' as pertaining to all deaths, we are excluding a lot of very important content.

For example:
The Zapruder film, for one, is not snuff, although it has already been banned for this reason. Mr. Zapruder never set out that day with the intention of filming the death of JFK, he did not then turn around and begin distributing unmarked copies of it at underground porn-fairs... it was a terrible terrible event that was caught on tape. Personally I am still highly miffed that it was removed from this site.

Another example:
Footage of Holocaust victims and death camp liberations could potentially also fall into this category if we go crazy with this anti-snuff campaign as it could be argued that many of the people in those films are in the process of dying, albeit slowly, but dying all the same... in any case, for footage such as this, a *serious tag would definitely be warranted as I doubt very many people want to watch dead bodies being piled up like cord-wood while having their morning coffee... however, I also doubt very many people would campaign for the bannation of such films due to their historical significance, the need to never forget, etc, etc.

As for wartime casualties, which is probably where we are going to have the most content to argue about...

War is a messy business dammit. People die. Lots of people die. By banning the transmission of images of death from the front lines were are only further insulating ourselves from this very real, very important facet of warfare. It goes right along with banning images of military coffins being unloaded... what people do not see, they do not think about, when they do not think of the end result of war it is easier for them to become complacent to the conflicts being waged in their interest, or in their name. In light of this, I feel it is horribly negligent on our part to censor that aspect of war... I would be all in support of some sort of function that would allow people to block such vids from their view... if they want to remain ignorant of the harsh realities of warfare that is their choice... but it is a reality, and an extremely important one that I feel deserves acknowledgment and the right to be gathered, brought here, and cataloged right alongside all other video documents of the realities of this world and it's political/historical troubles.

Ok.. so some clarification.. I mean Discovery Channel's crab fishing show could have clips deemed snuff.. and what about the blurry infrared military pr0n showing missle impacts? Technically this is showing death, but...

I believe it is the shocking upclose murder kind of videos.

I'm not sure a NASCAR crash, that someone died en route to the hospital should count as snuff. Now a motorcyle stunt video where the guy comes down, crashes and goes limp and is dead on impact, might be considered snuff. soo... I guess that is what *blog is for.

yes, obviously there will never be a clear definition and individual discussion will likely be needed. One very prominent example was that cell-phone vid of Saddam Hussein's execution (which, I believe, someone tried to ban me for posting). In my mind, the historical significance of not only the event, but all the shit it caused worldwide, is enough to grant it acceptance. However, it could also be debated that the person who shot that footage meant to profit somehow politically by its release... indeed, that is an interesting case.

-although, if I remember correctly, at the moment he was actually hung the camera was pointed predominately at the floor so no 'death' was actually captured, rather just the inhumane taunting by Shia executioners... in my mind, really the important content of the clip.

i agree with allowing posts with some significance, such the kennedy or the saddam one.

for example this video portrays a death, but i doubt someone would ever say it's snuff and it should be removed, and i'm glad about that: http://www.videosift.com/video/1911-Darwin-Award-Failed-Birdman