When The Human Centipede 2 was set to be released in the UK, it was originally banned by the British Board of Film Classification because whilst the first film had a premise; a grotesque science experiment, the sequel was more of the same with extra gore thrown in. Whilst The Guardian were quick to note the BBFC's complaints were mostly due to the sexual nature of the sadism, I felt what the BBFC added was a good summary of what shouldn't be shown in film.

They added:

"There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience."

This summary is not far from what anyone visiting Gore sites is looking for. So I think if this video were fictional and released, it would be banned. I don't think that's a contention, I think there's nothing more in expression in this film than bleak death and a sort of enjoyment in being grossed out.

For his expression of this video as a sense of free speech though. I mostly agree with free speech. I believe there are limits to what is free speech and what should not be allowed. That isn't particularly contentious in the UK, I understand free speech is defended quite passionately in the US. Elements of banned speech in the UK are hate speech, libel and slander.

I think libel and slander laws are found to be there for good reason rather than being decried as censorship. There isn't exactly a case to be found for allowing people to discredit others. Hate speech effectively defends itself; there isn't really a game in town that would protect hate speech. So I think the argument of "Free speech means he can post anything" falls apart; we already have many cases where free speech isn't unlimited, so this too should justify itself.

The reality of the act is interesting. Publishing a video of someone's death can have merit; historical importance in the hanging of Saddam Hussein, Peter Smedley's suicide in the BBC's Euthanasia documentary, tragedy in the 7/7 bombings, political scandal in Wikileaks' collateral murder. All these cases are recorded on video, capture the reality of death, in startling vividity, yet we do not debate that they should be viewable. So the issue is not in the reality of death.

I think the actual problem I have is what the expression of the video is and the expression of the community towards it and I do think this is relevant to the law. The law isn't merely to punish people for doing bad things to stop them doing them, it's to express how we feel about things.

One may lose more money on the stock market than in a courtroom; a prisoner of war camp may well provide a harsher environment than a state prison; death on the field of battle has the same physical characteristics as death by sentence of law. It is the expression of the community's hatred, fear, or contempt for the convict which alone categorises physical hardship as punishment. (The Expressive Function of Punishment pp99)

I'd write it out in my own words but it's a little late and it's written on my wall anyway. That's how the law is, it's why a speeding ticket matters more than your TV breaking. I don't know if he should be locked away for publishing the video and encouraging entertainment in watching this, but I feel that the law should express disdain for his actions in a suitable manner. I don't think there's an argument for tolerance or for free speech here. I think he's expressing little more than entertainment in someone dying, or being eaten or being raped and I don't want that in society. I feel like the law should reflect that, regardless of what they find.

I actually feel a lot more strongly about this than I thought I did when I started typing. Hopefully it's not too unclear to see how I feel.

Unpopular opinion: I think it should be illegal to keep these videos away from the public. Any instance of the government overstepping the grounds of what is obscene is just one more way of controlling us as a whole. If a video is of no worth other than exploitation, I will be the judge of that, not some collective opinions of some people I may or may not share values with.

Do I think it is wrong to frame these videos in such an exploitative manner? Sure. Has it been done before? Of course. In 50 years, are these videos going to be considered obscene or historical? In 100 years? In 200 years, will these videos be exploitative or a document of history? The way he presents the videos is morally ambiguous, probably inappropriate, but definitely not something you can convict anyone for.

I'm not sure that he can claim "we posted the video in the interest of the public". What his site does is glorify actual violence, not some made up alternate reality. However, as repugnant and vile as I find the content of this site, I cannot see any criminal liability (atleast here in the U.S.)--civil liability may a different matter. Courts may award the family with a portion of the profits from this video.

Even being in the presence of a dying person is a terrible feeling. However, viewing videos of people dying or being tortured is not the same as being there. That people might think that they are the same, is dangerous. I don't know that it should be illegal for people to actively seek out or provide that kind of media, but in the loosest sense of the word, it's entertainment. The fact that people are not recognizing that and questioning their motives for seeking entertainment by watching people get hurt or be killed, is not something that should be regulated by the government. It's something that we as individuals should be asking ourselves. That in many cases, it's not something that certain people are asking themselves, is no good.

The match between Betteridge's law of headlines vs tags has ended up a tie.