i understand that the decision to keep the link posted may be freedom of speech on behalf of Prince.org and the thread author but i also think that it is an insult to the members of this community to keep it up. it even more of an insult to the family of the victim. by keeping this up, we have played directly into the hands of the killers. they want you to watch it. they want to impose fear and intimidation onto you.
it's what 9/11 was about. these terrorists wanted a war. they got it, didn't they? now they want you to watch this gruesome and senseless crime.

i vote to have the link removed.

I guess I don't know how I feel about this. I couldn't watch the video.

But I do appreciate the debate among the moderators that took place before they decided to let it stay.

On the other hand, the link is available plenty of other places...

i respectfully disagree with milty's request.
[This message was edited Thu May 13 15:54:45 2004 by Anxiety]

I also think it should be removed.

Milty said:

Milty all respect due
but you don't know what freedom is, you only think you do
you don't have to look at the video, neither does anybody else
its by your own disgression
i have to disagree
no offence but these terrorist didn't want war
theyw anted compensation the for assinating several leaders in the 80's on behalf of the united states
if you knew the truth
you wouldn't fall for the fear factor thats all over the news

Luv4oneanotha said:

oh i'm so glad you know me so well.

removing it from a prince web site is not going to make it go away. removing it from a prince web site is not going to remove it from the internet. at least having it up here, people have been able to discuss their feelings on it, and on the state of things today in general. it's really horrible imagery - i can't bring myself to watch it, and i choose to stay far away from any images of it - but, see, that's the thing: i choose not to look at it. you can make that same choice. are you really qualified to make that choice for the rest of us on here?

Milty said:

If you don't want to watch it then don't click the link...
Don't try to force your opinion on other people...

Neversin.

Its quite simple.

You either agree with freedom of speech (and image) or you do not. You can not have your cake and eat it.

How many Americans asked for a ban on the photos of Iraqis being forced to have sex with their own fathers? Don't remember a thread on that one.

As an independent, I don't subscribe to the fact that American "sensitivity" is worse than others.

War has casualties. All of us. Grow up, and accept what is REALLY happening.

Leave it be. Everyone still has the choice to watch it or not. I think people should know the reality of what these sub-humans do.

SquirrelMeat said:

I as an American expatriate in Europe, respectfully agree. Living miles away from home I am often confronted with images from conflicts far and wide that I would never have the chance to see at home, and I think it has broadened my understanding of the brutality of war tremendously. The reality of war is on my tv screen everyday, and has actually been highly instrumental in allowing me to process the war experience as more than a propaganda machine for the current U.S. administration, as well as highten the intensity of my appreciation for the young kids that are stuck over there (as paradoxical as that may seem).

I think because of the fact that war is so brutal in reality, we definitely should have the choice to view the links on the subject so that we don't harbor any false expectations about what it truly means to have our young people involved in combat or in mission work during these troubled times in a troubled part of the world. I believe that the more we have the opportunity to see, the better informed we are as citizens to help us make decisons in our
democratic processes where our national foreign policies are concerened.

Redirecting from the Politics & Religion forum to prince.org Site Discussion. For those who don't know what it's about, after discussion among the prince.org moderators, we agreed to let stand a link to the video of Nick Berg being decapitated that had been posted to Politics & Religion.

I wrote this on the link thread... I'll repeat it here:

We (us mods) all contemplated over whether or not to allow this link to stay.

Those of you who choose to view it may do so.

Those of you who choose not to have that right also.

This is the "red pill" or the "blue pill" for some of you... and it's not an easy choice.

Do not click on the link so that you might have something more "substantial" to say on this subject. Do so for your own inner peace or outer anger. War is horrible. Fanatical situations take place during these "conflicts". Men in business suits make decisions that will never affect them or their families... our families pay for our "freedoms" with our blood. Over, and over again.

Wake up.

We mods decided for it to stay.

Rules of the Discussion Forums
The following rules apply to posts in all prince.org discussion forums, including the content of "signatures" and avatars:
Note that these rules are in addition to the terms of service you agreed to upon registering. Final say and interpretation of these rules for specific instances rests with the Moderators.

Be civilized
Don't create offensive, vulgar, obscene, threatening, abusive or excessively profane posts.





Personaly I find the post and link, offensive, vulgar, obscene, abusive and excessively profane. I understand it is the choice of the member whether or not to click on the link. But would it not be enough just to discuss what happened. People on this web site often post about the feelings of Prince for example. What about Mr. Berg's family ?

Question to Moderators.

If I posted a link showing, say, a cat being run over. Would that be allowed ?

I doubt it !

But this link is.



P.S. And no I have not watched it.
[This message was edited Tue May 18 3:17:41 2004 by xt1000]

xt1000 said:

yes, posting a link to a cat being run over woul be allowed...uploading said picture directly to the org would not....

this is war folks.....i hope everyone takes these feelings that the thread created and *act* in the manner you think is best. Get involved, lobby your gov. officials.....

the decision has been made ya'll....the best way to vote down the thread now is to not post on it....just let it die out....

-sos

2the9s said:

and?

xt1000 said:

In what context would you be posting the link? Is it in the context of "hey cool, look at this dumbass cat getting run over" or is it in the context of "this is significant to me because of >, and I want to discuss it with you"?

The decision to let the link stay up was not an arbitrary decision. It was a decision based on a fair amount of discussion and debate, both within ourselves and among each other.

I think it should be removed.

I also think the link should be removed.

Watching the video would serve no purpose other than titillation.

Anxiety is correct in saying that removing the link would not remove the actual video file from the internet. However...

01. If somebody posted a link to a child-porn site, would that also be morally acceptable? Just because something exists doesn't validate its existence;

02. Removing the link wouldn't be censorship at all. There is a difference between certification and censorship. I'm a robotic liberal, but I do believe in certification. In my opinion, to fully censor the video file, you would have to hack into every site hosting it and remove it against the hosts' wishes;

03. Linking to the file promotes it. How can anybody justify the promotion of the footage?;

04. The argument that the video file educates the viewer in "the reality" doesn't wash. If you can't conceive of how to behead somebody without having to watch a video of it happening, then you need to go back to school and get an education;

05. Many people may reiterate that the recent images of Iraqi prisoners being ill-treated and psychologically tortured were widely deemed acceptable within the context of reportage, so 'why shouldn't the Daniel Berg video also be acceptable?' The difference is that the Daniel Berg video shows somebody being murdered. I could possibly see the journalistic merit in viewing static images from before and after the actual beheading, but to actually view dying - not death - but dying... Well that would show no journalistic integrity whatsoever and displays utter contempt for the sanctity of life.

What if it were one of us? Would you want your dying moments broadcast around the world as basically little more than a political advertisement? Albeit a particularly gruesome advertisement, but an advertisement, nonetheless... That is all the video boils down to.

SquirrelMeat said:

Yes you can.

I believe that everybody should have the right to free speech, so long as that freedom is not abused to promote or actively inhibit anybody else's right to free speech.

Its common sense.

Oh, by the way... Cutting somebody's head off is definitely inhibiting that person's right to free speech.

BinaryJustin said:

I agree with you wholeheartedly and this post is eloquent and beautifully put. Thank you for the words I could not find myself.

To those who want the thread deleted, I have to ask this:

What offends or threatens you so much about having a choice presented to you on this site?

I don't want to see this thing. I have no intention of ever watching it. I wouldn't advise anyone to watch it.

But if watching this changes a person's perceptions of what's going on in this world right now, then...well...

And if anyone has grown as a result of the dialog on the subject in the P&R forum, then I feel the link is justified.

I'm sorry Justin and TOFKA - I love ya both madly - but in all due respect, I couldn't disagree with either of you more.

Anxiety said:

Anxiety - I love you too but I couldn't disagree more, either.

Look at the top of each page on this website and what do you see?... Google adverts which are basically little more than links and a small amount of blurb... Have I ever intentionally clicked on any of these? No... Have I ever accidentally clicked on any of these? Yes... Like I said previously, linking to something is promoting something. If it wasn't, why would Google offer financial support to sites that offer their sponsored links? Its advertising. I don't see why this site should advertise pre-meditated murder.

I don't see how watching the file would change anybody's perception in a beneficial manner. If just one person watches the video and is further desensitized to violence; if just one person watches the video and is further hyped up into a fundamentalist mind-set; if just one person watches the video and thinks that the behaviour displayed is 'the way of the world'.... Well, it outweighs any other supposed benefit in allowing the link to be posted.

In my opinion, the kind of people who want to view the video are the kind of people whom do not have the mentality to process this kind of material in an adult manner. Its like tossing a loaded gun into a baby's cot.

I've decided not to post here until the link is either removed or the thread falls into the archives. I really do feel that strongly about this.

Anxiety said:

It's funny how moderators have no problem locking and deleting completely harmless threads

and now will not delete a thread linking to the most disturbing video clip imaginable.

It doesn't make good sense at all.

CokeJohnson said:

Exactly

CokeJohnson said:

thats a competely different issue.... its a concern that will be addressed with the mod squad....

hey all..dont think your comments are falling on deaf ears..but i really havent seen any arguement to sway myself to think otherwise...

EvilWhiteMale said:

EWM is 100% correct. Also, we don't need anymore censorship in this world. Adults should be able to watch and listen to anything they choose. If the video offends you in any way, don't watch it.

BinaryJustin said:

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. I hear what you're saying and you make good points. My heart still completely disagrees 100% while my mind races to catch up and articulate a good argument.

I'll miss seeing you around here, Justin.

CokeJohnson said:

There's a large and ridiculously obvious difference between your two examples. Don't mix apples and oranges.