"Our definition of "snuff" does include (...) any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

also from the FAQ

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


Sorry burd, but you're still wrong. The site has properly defined snuff, but you are extending its meaning to include gore, mutilation, corpses, post-mortem imagery, what-have-you. I agree this shouldn't be on the Sift, but first and foremost stand for the proper use of language used to enforce such rules. A change is required to the FAQ to eliminate any misinterpretation. Per Sarzy, it needs to be re-written.

>> ^burdturgler:

It's snuff by the definition here on the sift. This isn't about the dictionary definition, it's how this site defines it.
"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."


I've mentioned this a few times before, but the "snuff" rule is ambiguously written, and essentially makes it so that there has to be a new debate every time a video like this is posted. The snuff rule also states "Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment)." This clip is not "displayed for entertainment", so by that definition, it should be okay.

There was the clip of the girl dying on the street in Iran, which on its own lacked any sort of context but was still decided to be okay to stay on here. But then there have been similar videos which have been removed, so who knows. Like I said, it's an ambiguous, contradictory rule. I feel like it should be rewritten to be more clear, but the consensus seems to be that it's better to debate these things on a case-by-case basis than to have a clear-cut rule one way or the other.

I guess I should have been more specific in what I thought needed discussing.

>> ^FAQ:

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.

Fake indeed, but very nice as well. As well I'm sure this was staged. They wouldn't just rip the dress off some random person lol. And IMHO it has nothing to do with 'this is how they treat women' but rather that sexuality is a much more open subject in much of the world than in the US thanks to our Puritanical roots and the religious right that has their paws on just about everything in this country. Someone mentioned the 'wardrobe malfunction' from a few years ago and how people in this country were in an uproar because their childred would be scared from getting a .2 second glimpse and some womans ugly nipple. Being the type of person who has friends all over the world, most of them outside the US had no idea what the big deal was. I myself found it rather funny watching the people on the news talking about their frail children catching a glimpse of someones nipple, never seeming to realize that those same children have nipples themselves.

It's just another reason why I am constantly aggravated with Christianity these days. You could likely trace a great deal of sexual crime, use of pornography and objectivity of women in this country to the fact that we are all so very sexually repressed compared to most other nations. Really we laugh about how repressed Muslims are, but we are just barely a step above them.

"Riddle later said she was referring to an isolated incident when she saw pornography on a lawmaker's cellphone."

All the women were sick of a hostile environment. This was the final straw.

>> ^gwiz665:

Yes, a baby nursing is porn. I see that now...
But seriously, is that picture the only thing that happened? How is that hateful, violent etc.? How is it an attack on women? I must be missing something.

http://www.lonestarreport.org/Home/tabid/38/EntryId/1185/Civil-Justice-League-suspends-Parsley-Roberts-over-flyer.aspx

I'll bet they are back in their jobs as soon as the furor dies down.

Some clarification on the final comment on the vid:

"Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, then asked Thompson whether she thought a symptom of the disrespect toward women was the "pornography on the floor of this House." Riddle later said she was referring to an isolated incident when she saw pornography on a lawmaker's cellphone.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/05/26/3108058/lawmaker-blasts-sexism-in-texas.html#ixzz1NfDeyFcI"

I love that there's a second-hand smoke ad before the actual music vid: "Remember, second-hand smoke hurts kids. And now, let's watch some child pornography."

It's made all the more disturbing due to the fact she's a terrible dancer and comes off looking even more like an uncoordinated toddler.

This is a silly conversation. There just aren't that many NSFW thumbnails, as @Sarzy said.

The jousting vid is a perfect example of how "discuss" works just fine. That stingray wanted to stay out of a perceived controversy, that was up to him. We had some private conversations and it was clear to me he was just fine with how it played out. It was just a vid to him, something fun, and he chose to kill it.

Just use common sense. The community will sort it out.

I understand that there is some fear that the politically correct police will make life miserable. But really -- apply some common sense. If someone is really touchy and is constantly drawing vids out of rotation because of a perceived NSFW, the community will make it clear that that person should hide the thumbnails and leave everyone's vids alone. The sift is really really REALLY good at shaming, blaming and making an individual's life hell, especially a sensitive individual. They will stop. Or leave the Sift.

The other side of that is someone who consciously and constantly posts vids that he (believe me, it would be a he) knows cross the line. Same thing will happen -- although wouldn't that person chance being banned for pornography, if it was a constant barrage?

Anyway, residue posted this question and has solved it for himself.

Personally, I plan on using the "discuss" tactic -- sparingly, sparingly, don't worry, I have no interest in censorship, just common sense.

Because ya'll can't censor me from my free speech.

follow up here: http://videosift.com/video/Tosh-0-Child-Pornography-1

In some states this would be considered child pornography.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*isdupe>> ^Skeeve:

While the older Sift is currently dead, this is a dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Perversion-for-Profit-1965-Anti-Pornography-Short

rats>> ^Skeeve:

While the older Sift is currently dead, this is a dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Perversion-for-Profit-1965-Anti-Pornography-Short

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Skeeve. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

While the older Sift is currently dead, this is a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Perversion-for-Profit-1965-Anti-Pornography-Short