Sure the video that was tossed was release of public security camera footage, and done for public awareness since the police involved never were investigated for an unjustified shooting, but hey,

"Note: the presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a reputable broadcast news report or documentary film."

check the faq.

We amended it to allow stuff for history purposes. I'll repaste here for your convenience.

"We do not want pornography or "snuff" films (in which the explicit depiction of loss of human life is displayed for entertainment). There are plenty of other sites that have these markets covered, but it's not for us.
Note: the presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a reputable broadcast news report or documentary film. "

Ok, lemme try to parse this part,
"limited portion of a reputable broadcast news report or documentary film."

Would the Chicago transit security footage be a reputable enough source, or is that done for sensational backalley porno footage?

Would the submitted video be considered a documentary purpose, when they are in fact narrating an actual event and "documenting" a crime that took place?

sounds like the video in question doesn't violate the charter.

I would say personally that the offending video has merit from the stance that the the internet helps draw attention to injustices and that appears to certainly qualify. If you want to return it I'm not going to fuss.

>> All of them are gone, "according to the clear violation of sift charter."

Just because one member declared such a thing does not make it so.

>> Ok, lemme try to parse this part,
"limited portion of a reputable broadcast news report or documentary film." Would the Chicago transit security footage be a reputable enough source, or is that done for sensational backalley porno footage? Would the submitted video be considered a documentary purpose, when they are in fact narrating an actual event and "documenting" a crime that took place?

You, jd, and djsunkid are obviously misunderstanding the faq. Let me see if I can explain a little more clearly where you're going wrong. It says the following:
"We do not want ... 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 reputable broadcast news report or documentary film."

It clearly cites in the "note" one example in which fatality is permissible on the Sift, but that note is not the guideline to which all videos must adhere. The guideline is the body of text before the note: no explicit loss of life for entertainment value. Besides, I say yes, it may be validly called a documentary piece because it's not just a "Hey, look at this guy die!" video. Rather it's a terse minute-by-minute breakdown of a news-worthy event being reported for informational value.

I'm going to un-discard the video.

You know, I have never seen nor desired to see snuff films, and knowing they are out there does not prompt me to want to seek them out either-but knowing that the kinds of people who would watch or make one are breathing the same air as myself, if I ever had personal knowledge of their location, I fear I may have to take the law into my own hands, to insure that their time left breathing my air, was cut abruptly short-I did not watch the vid, think I down voted it, and hope in the future, we see no more posted like that....i discarded the jet liner montage, because, while I love to see the results of all the wonderful effects of equal and opposite reactions, I got to thinking about the souls released to the ether,that were on the ones that were not remote controlled-reminded of this by the first viewer of the post.

Now, next time you are driving, and hear an ambulance or see some accident, try doing the opposite of what your robotic tendency is, and adjust that part of your mind, meatbots!!!

Sure the cop viddy was murder on film and not snuff, but the very fact that Joe is bringing this up, because it was posted here, means that there are voyeurs here, those folks who rubberneck to see an accident, and who would watch a man hitting a woman from across the street and point, rather than stop that man-That part in everyone, rather than indulged should identified and beaten back, just like any healthy society should eliminate repeat offenders, whose minds have been effectively rendered, through conditioning or imprint, unfit for society-

This is the most disturbing vid I've ever seen on the internet. And its not even snuff or real. Infact, its black humour. The blackest you can get, I suspect... I found the CCTV video we're talking about here far less disturbing.

Hands off my challenger explosion!!!

Wish they'd filmed the Titanic going down....we got jipped

issue is resolved *discard

Self-discarding this post (discard called by original submitter joedirt)