"People often mistaken me for something that I am not. Does the criticism hurt? Yes... but the best medicine is to ignore, and not give a shit."- Ian Mackalford
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.
I have no problem with you being considerate, but for you to propose that your level on consideration ought to be administrative policy is presumptious.
Again: what's legal for our host is OK here, by definition. Taking a stand beyond that (that is, beyond what's defined by the law) is something we probably can't agree on, but also something that is ONLY possible if we have moderators.
Quote from: odeon on July 15, 2007, 10:53:02 AMAgain: what's legal for our host is OK here, by definition. Taking a stand beyond that (that is, beyond what's defined by the law) is something we probably can't agree on, but also something that is ONLY possible if we have moderators.I don't see why we would need moderators to ever reach an agreement on a particular video clip. I agree with Milla that many of these films are nothing more than snuff flicks. If snuff flicks aren't legal here, then what is the difference between a snuff flick and a flick where someone is beaten near to death since that would be attempted murder??
(Presumptuous, Py.)
You'll never self-actualize the subconscious canopy of stardust with that attitude.
I agree that this is a slippery slope. I'd vote only to delete child porn unquestionably, and have the WC decide on others on a case-by-case basis.
it's not footage of an illegal act that should be illegal so much as footage where someone is being exploited against their will. be it children or adults, noone should be filmed and that film posted online without their consent.
same difference. it's clearly wrong.