Daniel Pearl video available online

[Nothing But Net]

Got the link through TotalFark.

I you have any doubt about how depraved and barbaric human beings can be, I invite you to watch...

In fact, the video is so graphic and disgusting I'm not even going to post the link here; e-mail me if you want it.

It is amazing how good the production values are. These people aren't street thugs; they are well organized, well financed madmen.

I hate these fuckers!

(Not sure how long this site's gonna be up, it's on AOL)

[Nic Name]

AP reports FBI urging Internet sites to remove video of Daniel Pearl's killing.

[Nothing But Net]

Fuck the FBI for trying to suppress this.

I think the American public should be allowed see it if they wish; it might just get rid of some those complacent attitudes...

The thing is... what you have to remember... this is a video of someone's last moments. It's not whether or not we should see it... it's a man's life. It's <b>his</b> life. Not ours. Not ours to say whether or not we should be able to see it.

Forget about getting rid of complacent attitudes. It's a video of a man's life ending. It's not about us or them. It's about him.

[russotto]

Wired's Declan McCullagh reported on the FBIs attempt to suppress the video -- including links to where it could be found, obviously thumbing his nose at the Feds.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,52772,00.html

As for it being his life -- yes, but it's not his video. And he has little to say about it in any case. Dead men, many cases have affirmed, have no rights. You can't libel them, you can't slander them, and you can't violate their Fourth Amendment rights, among other things.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by russotto
As for it being his life -- yes, but it's not his video. And he has little to say about it in any case. Dead men, many cases have affirmed, have no rights. You can't libel them, you can't slander them, and you can't violate their Fourth Amendment rights, among other things.

But his family could sue to prevent future publishing of the tape, correct? I would think that his estate has the right to control his image.

Don't get me wrong...I support the right to see the video. I don't want to see it myself though.

[Nic Name]

A person's rights, dead or alive, to control the use of one's personal image is not greater than the people's First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press, and neither the preferences of the FBI nor an act of Congress can abridge that.

There are limitations on free speech, of course. But hurting the feelings of anyone, or embarassing or making uncomfortable the next of kin or anyone, is not one of them.

And if we think that's not a good system of government, there are many countries in which we could live where it is otherwise.

In a free country, we can choose what we read or view and I wouldn't choose to look at that video. But we can respect the rights of others to publish it and be thankful for those rights, which are protected by the Constitution.

In fact, as a journalist, Daniel Pearl lived and died believing in those rights and probably would be fighting for his rights to publish similar images of others if he had come back from the war zone with such a tape in hand. Surely, he wasn't where he was, doing what he was doing, believing there were some stories and images of the war that are not to be published in America.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by sycamore

But his family could sue to prevent future publishing of the tape, correct? I would think that his estate has the right to control his image.

Not true. "Appropriation of likeness" does not apply to coverage of a newsworthy event.

[BrianR]

Isn't this the same argument we had over the posting/airing of the news footage of whatzisname,
the politician who chose to end his life with a .38 revolver at a press conference?

Damn my eyes but I can't quite say his name. I know it though... MMM was the owner of a video of
this and other squeamish things that made for a great party!

Why is it that all the good people are either mellowing or gone?

MMM, RichH, Omi, me?

Brian "old age sux"

R. Budd Dwyer.

I'd submit that the case is different, as he called a press conference at which he reached the end of his rope. Daniel Pearl had no choice.

[tw]

Originally posted by BrianR
Why is it that all the good people are either mellowing or gone?

MMM, RichH, Omi, me?

Brian "old age sux"

If you are old, I'm ancient. It feels only recently I was a rookie using a 300/1200 baud modem when 2400 and 9600 were standard.

[tw]

Originally posted by Nic Name
A person's rights, dead or alive, to control the use of one's personal image is not greater than the people's First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press, and neither the preferences of the FBI nor an act of Congress can abridge that.

Unfortunately the request (with force) to quash those pictures is not based upon rights. It is based upon some silly moral issue.

When Liza Thomas Laurie and Jim Gardner (two local gossip TV reporters) show you a car crash, are they providing useful facts? Do we learn something? They don't tell us how to avoid the crash, why it happened, what the vehicles are, or even if they have Firststone/Bridgestone tires. They show it for hype and emotion - and not for a single reason logical. Where are the moralist when Action News wastes good broadcast spectrum with hype and emotion?

How many people participated in the killing of Daniel Pearl? Were his hands behind his back? From his eyes, did he really know what was to happen next? What was he wearing - still his old clothes? What kind of tools did they use - religious implements or military weaspons? What was the killer(s) wearing? Religious garb, military uniforms, or just rags? Detailed facts we don't have but could have been provided by those pictures.

Details so important now that the current government is hiding everything in the name of national security. Hiding everything, in part, because they are mismanaging government. Those little details go a long way to discover, for example, if this right wing government is telling us truths.

For those who want to see Daniel Pearls death for a thrill, instead go block traffic rubbernecking at some car crash. But because those people exist is no reason to censor facts from those who thrive and demand facts. The film of Daniel Pearl is public domain information. Our representative - our WSJ reporter - was killed seeking information for us. Indeed we should know the details to know why and how our enemies killed our man.

Those are 1st Amendment rights. Those rights would only be trumped if information on that video had to be kept secret to expedite the capture of his murders. Clearly that is not the case. Details of his death are public domain information that only moralist would supress to impose their morality on us. Moreso, we all should be seing his murder's fact as if it was America's Most Wanted.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by tw

If you are old, I'm ancient. It feels only recently I was a rookie using a 300/1200 baud modem when 2400 and 9600 were standard.

When I started out with computers, the standard baud rate was 110. I used 300 baud to dial into the first BBS ten years later.

[BrianR]

Originally posted by MaggieL

When I started out with computers, the standard baud rate was 110. I used 300 baud to dial into the first BBS ten years later.

You beat me. I did the 110 thing with my schools' TTY terminal but my own first machine was the Radio Shack Videotex terminal running at 300 baud dedicated software and all caps 32 col screen. People hated me for "shouting" all the time until I figured out why and explained myself.

Brian

Originally posted by BrianR
People hated me for "shouting" all the time until I figured out why and explained myself.

FIRST, LET ME APOLOGIZE FOR MY SHOUTING. THERE IS POPCORN KERNEL STUCK UNDER MY CAPS-LOCK KEY AND I CANNOT PRESS THE BUTTON TO TURN IT OFF. ANYWAY, I FIRST GOT INTO COMPUTERS LAST WEEK. THEY ARE VERY COOL AND FAST. I CAN GET ALL THE PORN I WANT TO WITH JUST MY DAD'S CREDIT CARD. HE NEVER LOOKS AT THE STATEMENT ANYWAY SO I AM SAFE FROM HIS SCRUTINY. ANYWAY, THESE THINGS ARE REALLY NEAT. I DOWNLOAD ALL THE MUSIC I WANT FOR FREE AND BURN IT ON TO CDS! THIS INTERNET IS EXPENSIVE AT $80 EACH MONTH BUT I MAKE UP FOR IT IN THE MONEY I SAVE FROM CD PURCHASES. THIS IS GREAT!

man. kinds have it so lucky these days. obviously, since i'm young, i started off later than you, but still... my first computer was a commodore 64 (All Praise The Machine). this fancy windows shit wasn't around yet, and i was content to just play games and do limited word processing (which i printed out in all its dot matrix glory - yeah!). now some lucky kid gets his first computer experience on a high-end macintosh running macos x. and he's probably only twelve years younger than i am. it's amazing how fast the technology has advanced. what the hell was an mp3 back in 1990? i first got into them in '97 and that was when they were pretty much brand spankin' new. now they've taken the world by storm. broadband? internet access providers? 1600x1200 at 85hz? i was tickled shitless when i got a number nine video card and could run 1024x768 with more than 256 colors. and that was only in 1996.

what amazing times we live in