I don't think they're illegal, but journalism aside, they may at times be suggestive of a terroristic inclination. It will raise further red flags. They can however lie to you that the possession is illegal and detain you for it, even though it's legal as per the First Amendment, and no jury will find you guilty if you quote the First Amendment in your defense, except in the event of a Supreme Court precedent against such possession.
Some countries like NZ and Australia do ban content that is violence and censor it despite journalistic value. They recently tried to force X to ban footage of a stabbing globally for all users, and Musk said no luckily.
It's shocking how much censorship we have these days in the world. "For our safety", except it's not, it's for the reduction of freedom since freedom is noise and noise in 0.001% of cases can generate unsafety.
Yes. Children are victims. They are re-victimized when the videos are shared. Perverts sharing them encourages more to be produced. Same thing with murder videos and animal torture videos.
Families have become victims of harassment when weirdos have sent images to them of their dead family member.
Most people would be offended if I pissed on their mother's grave.
Let's say they can't be re-victimized and their families aren't new victims. There's still the argument that it encourages more killings.
I believe that videos like the Christchurch massacre should be banned. That video was made by the murderer and I'm sure was intended to bring fear to that community and encourage more acts of violence by other murderous weirdos.
A surveillance video or a video made by a victim or bystander is different. I don't think those videos should necessarily be shared, but if they're not made by the perpetrator or shared to try to bring support to the preparator, then yeah it's probably newsworthy. Still, the victims' families should be taken into consideration. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be scrolling through Twitter and come across a video of someone you know being murdered.
> Still, the victims' families should be taken into consideration. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be scrolling through Twitter and come across a video of someone you know being murdered.
Maybe so, but I don't want you in charge of determining my feelings on the matter, and I want to be subject to your censorious ideas even less. We may agree on many things, but inevitably we'll disagree on others and then my life becomes worse because of your judgement. Just leaving it alone is probably the least harmful thing.
If you are arguing for the banning of sharing of videos of murder created by the murderer, then your initial comparison to CP is off.
In any case, the general idea of banning access to and possession or distribution of evidence of crime creates an insane power imbalance that I don't think can ever be justified, unfortunately, by the obviously extremely unfortunate things you mention above.
Videos of violent crimes that were filmed by the perpetrator of that crime should be illegal to distribute. Perjury is illegal. Judges limit what people can say about ongoing trials. There are all kinds of restrictions on speech. It's ok if this is one of them.
Why?
I believe they have journalistic value.