Maybe you have selective hearing? Try starting the video at 0:29 where the narrator says:

A lonely confused young man gets addicted to pornography...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mormons, lds, maturbation, battlefield' to 'mormons, lds, masturbation, battlefield, pornography addiction, byu idaho' - edited by xxovercastxx

This is clearly not snuff.

"Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

Here are the sift guidelines when it comes to "snuff"

Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.
http://videosift.com/faq#posting_guidelines

To remove the video just put *kill or *discard in the comments and it will be removed.

Translation: The target audience for this sandwich are likely to enjoy pussy and beef between hard-drinking, drug abuse, and pornography.

By the way, can I co-star in a remake of Human Centipede with these two and be the center person??...but instead of being fed food, a drip of methamphetamine and morphine (real junk on the set).

Pornography comes from the greek pornē, for prostitute. So, pornocracy might actually be a pretty good description of modern political culture.

Just FYI VideoSifts definition of what snuff is has nothing to do with the dictionaries definition. What is and isn't snuff is an argument that has gone on a VS since the beginning of time itself I believe this video could be considered snuff by past videos that have been discarded as snuff. I however think it's a poor rule which is to difficult to define properly and will always cause debate.

Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

nice 1 minute intro, i just watched part 2 which is a 30 minute exploration of pornography surfing with the bus/train commuter in mind

Finally, a little perspective. I feel like CNN was really just trying to emphasize that this isn't some bullshit punishment. These kids got their asses handed to them. They're fucked. I think this was in direct response to the understandable concerns that they wouldn't be.

This brings up a bigger question, which is "why don't more of these cases end this way?" My argument would be because the legal consequence of sexually related crime is too severe. It often has the effect of making the judge or jury uncomfortable levying that punishment in light of the specific facts of the case, and thus acquit the rapists to avoid destroying their life completely. It even probably dissuades many victims from levying accusations in the first place. If there were more graded punishments as there are in many other developed nations, we might find charges and convictions more common.

The registered sex offender thing is just one example. I remember that one case of a girl getting charged with distributing child pornography for sexting her boyfriend. Now she has to tell her neighbors she's a sex offender. It's all about politics, not justice.

What kind of pornography does that kid read to write that?

His theory, or argument, was based on gross misinterpretations of Christian doctrine. It would be like if I said that videosift is a morally bankrupt website because the majority of its videos are child pornography. Of course this is patently untrue so all I have there is a strawman argument. I have painted videosift as something it isn't so I can trash and attack its character. This is the same thing Sam Harris is doing. He has painted Christianity as something that it isn't and trashed and attacked its character based on distortions and untruths. It sounds very persuasive if you are not actually familiar with the subject material. Sam is presenting himself as an authority on the subject but as I showed in my reply he lacks even a grasp of the very basics. If you feel my refutation is inadequate in any way, please specifically show me where.

The convincing evidence I have received is personal revelation. To know God He must reveal Himself to you, otherwise you won't know anything about God. Why do you think its impossible that there is a God? Do you have any church background?

"Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

No one died in this video (though there were fatalities during this accident). This video has been played during several news broadcasts and linked to several online print news articles like http://www.theage.com.au/world/bad-brakes-cited-in-moscow-crash-landing-20121230-2c140.html, and think qualifies as educational over entertainment.

I'm really not sure what to say here because on one hand people want certain kinds of very violent porn. Are they (porn actresses) not briefed on "This film will contain choking, slapping, etc etc"?

The problem is these abuses happen in ALL workplaces but since you're already fucking it makes it almost impossible to decide in black and white standards.

I think these people need to have their own private managers on set with them if things start to go awry where they say no they want to stop etc they can be their advocate and put an end to what is happening. Getting government involved will just make things worse.

The entire PORN industry is not that bad because there are many women who do porn their entire lives and love it.

I think one of the REAL problems is the Owner/Operator that really seems to be happening. A very wealthy guy who wants to fuck hot chicks just has to film himself now and voila it's not prostitution it's pornography.

If there is an entire set of people (IE Not just people getting fucked and one guy with the camera) nobody would stand by and watch these things happen.

No 47! You're disguised as the fluffer!

oh, and remember that guy is like, head of a child pornography ring or something. He's the bad guy. Its a shame you had to kill all those innocent people to get to him though.

So google searches are never pertinent in case of this type? Only for those case by which the computer is instrumental? No exceptions? I wonder if there is a principle which can be drawn.

>> ^bareboards2:

@Trancecoach, maybe if we changed the crime from rape, a notoriously difficult situation under any circumstance, to some other crime.
Because when the crime is rape, and a woman's sexual activities outside the actual event are introduced, things get hairy.
So. Push the reset button. Let's pick another crime and see if google searches are pertinent.
Building a bomb. How did they learn how to build the bomb? Did they search the internet for sources of materials? Did they order the materials online? Yeah, I'll say a subpoena for that information is in order.
Child pornography. Yeah, I think you are going to need the computer for that.
Organizing a terrorist cell. Yeah, email records, I think that is admissible evidence in court.
Even the judge in this case found the subpoena for her google searches and her journals that recorded her healing process after the rape to be inappropriate and voided them.
I glad she had that judge. Who restricted the case to the physical evidence of assault.