I don’t know whether the law is written broadly enough to do that.
There are of course free speech concerns here, but if the law only targets cases where violence or other criminal activity was engaged in specifically to film it, even I don’t see that this contradicts my broad understanding of free speech rights.
your comment would be received a lot better if it said “Does this apply to pictures exposing torture or genocide?”. you’re very confidently claiming it does this thing, and so you got downvoted because it’s not true.
I realize. Even if it came across as not being able to post snuff, one would think that would be a good thing, but my stars, the level of inability to consider different possibilities or inquire says as much. So I left it. It shows that if the messenger has delivered messages not officially approved by the bandwagon before will automatically be taken in the worst return later.
And that’s not even touching on bandwagon fallacy.
I don’t know whether the law is written broadly enough to do that.
There are of course free speech concerns here, but if the law only targets cases where violence or other criminal activity was engaged in specifically to film it, even I don’t see that this contradicts my broad understanding of free speech rights.
Well at least you understood the comment.
your comment would be received a lot better if it said “Does this apply to pictures exposing torture or genocide?”. you’re very confidently claiming it does this thing, and so you got downvoted because it’s not true.
I realize. Even if it came across as not being able to post snuff, one would think that would be a good thing, but my stars, the level of inability to consider different possibilities or inquire says as much. So I left it. It shows that if the messenger has delivered messages not officially approved by the bandwagon before will automatically be taken in the worst return later.
And that’s not even touching on bandwagon fallacy.