●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byregistrations_suck ( 1075251 ) writes:
You know what's more dangerous than "dangerous content" ?
Labeling stuff as "dangerous content".
byRinnon ( 1474161 ) writes:
Nah. We're okay to label things like live streamed suicides and snuff films as "dangerous content," and to prohibit them. Not every slope is that slippery.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
If I want to kill myself and film it, why shouldn't I have the right to do so? You equally have right not to watch.
byRinnon ( 1474161 ) writes:
It is an affront to human dignity.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
You'd rather dispose of someone else's free will rather than you feel offended because they're degrading themselves?
byRinnon ( 1474161 ) writes:
You'll need to look up "affront to human dignity" if you think the matter is as petty as my taking offense. But to answer your question more directly: Do I consider an affront to human dignity grounds to place restrictions on someone's liberty? Yes. I do.
bylsllll ( 830002 ) writes:
It's HIS dignity, not yours. He wasn't hurting anyone else. When the police investigated him because of his channel, their conclusion was that he was in full control of what was happening and he was doing it for money and fame. Where do you get off making decisions on how someone else should live their life when it doesn't concern you? Your "an affront to humanity" argument is rather weak when his actions don't affect you.
byRinnon ( 1474161 ) writes:
Okay, well, first of all, you're not talking about the same thing we were talking about. I was answering the above parent's question "If I want to kill myself and film it, why shouldn't I have the right to do so?". That's not the same situation as the one the article describes that you are talking about. So I'm going to try to answer the thrust of your point rather than the specific circumstances you're talking about.
An affront against human dignity is about more than just an individual person. It is an aff
byAnonymous Coward writes:
... and I think you'll understand what I'm getting at, even if you don't agree with me or think this is insufficient to make a restriction on liberty warranted.
Thank you for adding this. It's what was on my mind the whole time I read that paragraph. The dignity of my family, company, country, etc.. MUCH less important to me than each members personal liberty.
Even with the slavery analogy - I couldn't care less if something someone does is an affront to the collective, but impinging on the liberty of an individual is WAY THE FUCK over the line. FWIW, I strongly follow the harm principle, which makes this very clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"The only purpo
byRinnon ( 1474161 ) writes:
... and I think you'll understand what I'm getting at, even if you don't agree with me or think this is insufficient to make a restriction on liberty warranted.
Thank you for adding this. It's what was on my mind the whole time I read that paragraph. The dignity of my family, company, country, etc.. MUCH less important to me than each members personal liberty.
No problem, there's definitely room for more than one take on matters like this. I'm sure we have more ground in common than not. I'm also well aware that on the collective-individual spectrum I fall quite far towards the collective side of things compared to others; I don't consider it right or wrong it's just my own value hierarchy.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." -- John Stuart Mill 1859.
I'm certainly not going to argue against Mill's harm principle. However, I would consider harm to others to have a fairly broad meaning. Clearly there are some obvious examples; but I can't help but wonder if "harm" can't include something a bit more nebulous and indirect.
I used the word "dignity" a lot, and taken alone it might seem frivolous- like I'm concerned with pride or some such thing. My real concern is the sorts of actions that become possible, even palatable, when someone (or a group) is dehumanized. Throughout history we can look at the language used by people who commit atrocities and (it seems to me) there is a thread that runs through much of it: those aren't people; they're animals; they're not really human. My deepest concern on the topic is what devaluing our collective humanity unlocks in the form of future allowance. It may be that failure to concern ourselves with our collective dignity will be the individuals burden to bare in the future. Would the harm principle include harm to others in the future? I'm not sure.
In this specific case, I do not think that the death of a human should ever be allowed to become the content of entertainment for others. I believe this is something which humans must put themselves above, collectively, despite the liberty and intentions of an individual to the contrary. I think we make ourselves better for it; and failure will yield a worse society for us all. I do not wish to see a time where dying for the entertainment of others in order to feed your family is a genuine consideration. It is not my intention to belittle the cost of liberty, it is a serious price, I simply believe that sometimes it is worth paying.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bylsllll ( 830002 ) writes:
However, I would consider harm to others to have a fairly broad meaning. Clearly there are some obvious examples; but I can't help but wonder if "harm" can't include something a bit more nebulous and indirect.
This is very clarifying on where your thoughts are. I think we both realize what is physical and monetary damage to others and we'd both be in agreement that it's wrong. What you're eluding to here, however, is the idea that it somehow pains you (or the society in general) to watch or even know when I do something that's against your morals or liking, even though I am not physically forcing you to see my actions and you have every opportunity to walk away from. And that, my friend, is where your right to
●your current threshold.
● current threshold.
●rrent threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...