• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Simpsons are People - it's Official!

JFrankA said:
I didn't even know that obtaining a film of a real crime, even though the obtainee isn't connected to the crime at all, for the sheer purpose of watching it or having it, is illegal.
Click to expand...

The specifics vary a bit by jurisdiction; but under certain circumstances, it is definitely illegal. "Withholding Evidence", "Obstruction of Justice", "Incitement to Commit a Crime", or some such. There must be knowledge and intent, it must be a crime which is either undiscovered or under investigation, and there are usually other factors as well (such as protection against self-incrimination, or incrimination of a close family member). The case of San Francisco blogger Josh Wolf is a good example. He has refused to turn over a video that he made during a protest, that federal investigators believe contains footage of a police officer being beaten (a police car was vandalized and an officer severely injured by protesters). He has claimed journalistic immunity, despite the fact that he's not a journalist. He's currently being held on charges of withholding evidence.
 
JFrankA said:
Weeellllll I WAS pretty sure of it until Luchog's post and your article.

....Sheeesh! Thought police are everywhere....
Click to expand...
Nonsense. It's nothing to do with "thought police". It has to do with possessing and withholding material evidence to a crime.
 
luchog said:
Nonsense. It's nothing to do with "thought police". It has to do with possessing and withholding material evidence to a crime.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps we misunderstood each other. I wasn't speaking of withholding evidence at all. What I meant was, for example, if the killer posted the murder on youtube, let's say. Anyone downloading or watching the film isn't withholding evidence at all, it's there for all to see.

Is it a crime to download and view it? There's no withholding of evidence on the downloader's part if it's easily retained by, well, anyone, even if there the killer charged a fee to download it.

But the "thought police" I was refering to was the article posted by Geni. Although, admittingly, "thought police" isn't quite the right term. In the case of Geni's article, ( http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/...ng-video-charge/2008/12/11/1228584982919.html ) the case is being made that even just merely VIEWING the vid is illegal even though there is no real crime.
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
Nonsense. It's nothing to do with "thought police". It has to do with possessing and withholding material evidence to a crime.
Click to expand...

A video without a chain of custody is not material evidence. And citizens are not obligated to report a crime to their police that occurred in another country.
 
slingblade said:
Oz seems to be losing its judicial mind, frankly:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/12/11/1228585025766.html
Click to expand...

Sadly, I must agree with you. Where does "Funniest Home Videos" now stand? I'm sure this type of "entertainment" is available in most countries. It would lose half of it's content if it didn't show kids falling of bikes, skis, swings etc.

Besides, I've seen commentary that the offending video in this case has been doctored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom