jimnms actually does have a very valid point....obviously a double-standard exists....i find the Zapruder film to be far more disturbing than this....the Oswald/Ruby assassination is also on the sift...much like the pornography issue, snuff isn't always black and white and easily defined....given the greater historical context, I think that this video is sift-worthy....

>> ^Zonbie:
How is it snuff if he does not even die on the video?!
He died in hospital

That's really splitting hairs. It's a good bet he was brain dead almost immediately after impact. I don't see how the fact that a doctor waited a couple of days to declare him so makes any difference. As for being taken off on a stretcher, well, I'm pretty sure that would have happened in any case - I don't think they'd drive a hearse into the stadium.

Videosift snuff rule is simple, you cannot post some random person dying on video - the only exceptions beings the ones given.

Actually, as joedirt noted, it's not at all simple. Celebrity or "randomness" of the person involved is not relevant - the Zapruder film was punted too. The one consistency in the application of this rule that seems to have held up is whether the video contains some commentary or documentary value other than the incident itself.

I thought this guy was proven to be a fraud. I know his theory about Kennedy's assassination was dead wrong. The driver did not shoot him, and that's clearly evident from watching the cleaned up Zapruder film. Yes, I've seen Cooper's "Town Hall Meeting" tape.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
Martin Luther and Kennedy. In the day if you had a streak of liberalism in you, you were bound to be a target of assassination. Quite unfortunate. Both individuals were great men for their vision and desire to make the US a better place.


Don't forget the assassination of RFK, the assassination of Malcolm X, the installation of Pinochet in Chile, the Bay of Pigs invasion, multiple attempts to assassinate Castro, Operation Ajax, the US invasion of Panama, US invasion of Grenada, the 1977 CIA-backed coup in Pakistan, the CIA coup of Guatemala, etc.

>> ^highdileeho:
I feel for jackie having to witness it happening inches away. What a nightmare.


Not to mention having to jump on the trunk to grab the top of his skull.

Jesus, is this what modern life has become? We spend all of our time marking MySpace friend requests as spam and analyzing every internet video like it's the God damned Zapruder film? Douchebags of the net have driven us to this fate!

Don't be a douchebag! Stop the faking of internet videos!

Dag - good luck on writing that FAQ entry. I think it will come down to something like Stewart's comment on pornography in 60's - "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." And this is one of my primary concerns. What one person considers an important historical document, is another person's snuff (Exhibit A: the Zapruder film).

I'm also worried that it will begin to attract folks into this community who are interested in little more than watching these types of vids for the shock value, leaving drive-by style comments, thus contributing nothing and possibly detracting from the strength of this community.

set up cameras to record this kind of stuff because they are the ones that get off on it.

Then it is, by definition, snuff - filming of a death for entertainment purposes.

I think it should go, because as lucky points out, it will encourage stuff like this. In other words, even though this particular vid doesn't show a human being torn in half, it might as well have done so for the effect it has.


I've yet to see a local newspaper that actually lists pictures and names of every single American that dies over there.

It's not a newspaper, but the Newshour on PBS has a silent tribute to every soldier KIA at the end of their broadcast. I agree with gorgon that this does not tell us what's happening over there. There are many sources of information about what is happening, and random vids of people getting blown up is not one of them.

I'm surprised the Zapruder film would have been denied a place here, as it is clearly more than random violence. It's a historical document.

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.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

wow, you stabilized it like the Zapruder film.

for what it's worth i supported keeping the zapruder film around. The Saddam film though is really just snuff fetishism. The only reason it was made in the first place was so that angry religious sects could broadcast their triumph to their brothers.

If this is publishable the Zapruder film should be put back for the same reasons that Goofball feels that this shouldn't be swept under the rug.

Zapruder gets swept under that rug and Saddam getting hung makes people attempt bannations. Yet photos of nameless black men getting tortured and murdered gets put on a pedestal because of "historical context that we can't turn away from."

Zapruder and Saddam have historical context that can't be looked away from, they matter to history just as much as any of these photos. Way to enforce a blatant double standard. If this is allowed...bring back Zapruder and Saddam. If not, continue being hypocrits and have good luck with it.

The attempted Bannination came from me. Sorry about that, nothing personal. Mostly a knee-jerk reaction to seeing the video posted YET AGAIN after so much time spent debating the topic.

In reply to your comment:
“Wow. My first attempted bannation. I don't know what to say accept that I


A) Felt that the video does indeed hold some historical/politcal significance, both in the sense of the event itself as well as the controversy surrounding it's airing/existence. My post of it was therefore an attempt to spawn discussion of it and was not meant to offend anyone.

and

B) I did so somewhat prematurely, before I noticed this discussion thread, which obviously would have negated my desire to post it... as you're all obviously already talking about it, picking sides, etc etc etc.

So, to everyone who's toes I've stepped on, I apologize only for my negligence in research before posting, not however for offending you, because y'all can always choose not to watch.... and I do believe that videos of the 'snuf' vein, are capable of being the occasional exception.



Ciao.

Raven

PS I do believe this video will one day be compared with the Zapruder film for its politcal relevance... as it will no doubt spawn as much discussion and perhaps even more of a politcal-shit-storm over the next few years.”

Hey, no need to apologize to the SiftCommunity, but it's both kind and generous of you to do so; things just got a bit carried away. Consider yourself honoured by the participation in the SiftDrama (I think I'm the first person to coin 'SiftDrama').

Cool? Hot.

And look, just another video submit cycle from gold - good luck!

In reply to your comment:
“Wow. My first attempted bannation. I don't know what to say accept that I


A) Felt that the video does indeed hold some historical/politcal significance, both in the sense of the event itself as well as the controversy surrounding it's airing/existence. My post of it was therefore an attempt to spawn discussion of it and was not meant to offend anyone.

and

B) I did so somewhat prematurely, before I noticed this discussion thread, which obviously would have negated my desire to post it... as you're all obviously already talking about it, picking sides, etc etc etc.

So, to everyone who's toes I've stepped on, I apologize only for my negligence in research before posting, not however for offending you, because y'all can always choose not to watch.... and I do believe that videos of the 'snuf' vein, are capable of being the occasional exception.



Ciao.

Raven

PS I do believe this video will one day be compared with the Zapruder film for its politcal relevance... as it will no doubt spawn as much discussion and perhaps even more of a politcal-shit-storm over the next few years.”

This is all a lesson in context, folks - the Zapruder film/Kennedy assassination happened over 40 years ago and actually IS history, while Saddam's execution just happened the other friggin' day.

And to repeat myself yet again, as there are clearly people here who just watch the pretty images and don't read, you can see this thing pretty much EVERYPLACE ELSE on the internet. It's deliberately not being included here, per the rules.

How stupid do you have to be not to get this?