Here’s the thing.
Digital graphics capabilities have reached the point where you can’t tell what is and isn’t real. What Hollywood was doing a decade or more ago has now reached the desktop.
So.
You have a real crime with a real victim, but the perp claims that the video is all digital, no real humans harmed. And you have a jury, and a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard to convict.
Want to bet that at least one juror, given the instruction that digital animation of child rapes, animal tortures, and murders, are all legal under the 1st A., decides that there’s a “reasonable doubt”?
One more thing that the 1st Amendment absolutists can’t address.
25 comments
So - despite the likes of the "Saw", "Hostel" and "Hunan Centipede", which don't rely on CGI - why don't 'Snuff' films exist ?
Charlie Sheen & "Flower of Flesh and Blood". Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film
'The first two films in the Japanese Guinea Pig series are designed to look like snuff films; the video is grainy and unsteady, as if recorded by amateurs.'
Or just scared to admit that one of the 'sacred cows' of you tinfoil (ass)hatters, the 'Alien Autopsy' footage, is nothing more than a hoax: like "Guinea Pig"?
That's one more thing you lot daren't address: how all your 'Conspiracy Theories' can be easily destroyed. Snuffed , if you will.
@creativerealms
"As good as CGI is these days its not that good."
In creating the Decepticon Devastator for "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", the CGI was so complex, it caused the computers at ILM's 'Death Star' render farm to melt .
So even a few decades after "Tron", it seems we still have some ways to go.
At some point in the future, this may indeed become a problem, we aren't there yet but maybe...
However, I fail to see what this would have to do with the first amendment ?
Creating fake video for this sort of purpose would be a crime, just as making up any story or planting false evidence is a crime now.
In most cases there will be other evidence to suggest foul play was involved other than a video.
Also, in our court system, the jury is carefully selected to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Normally if someone's actually committed a crime, there's a victim, be it an animal, a child, or a dead body. I'd assume most judges are smart enough to realise that.
Is this an argument against loli or something? Because it's a pretty shitty one.
"Digital graphics capabilities have reached the point where you can’t tell what is and isn’t real. What Hollywood was doing a decade or more ago has now reached the desktop. "
So you're saying you can't tell the CGI from real life in 2006 films like X-men 3 and pirates of the Caribbean? Please go get your eyes tested.
@Insult to Rocks
Why, I still remember that time when the Muppets faked a homicide!
That's what they want you to think. We all know that Kermit murdered a prostitute.
This is stupid as all fuck, but there is something of a point buried deep inside that might not be intended.
Ignoring the 1st Amendment stuff, there are very good questions to be asked about spycraft operations. Secret Police stuff, where a fake crime and all is whipped up nice and clean. If you "can't locate the scene of the crime, nor find the body" you still have thevideo. Juries are sadly stupid, and have been shown to accept staggeringly bad manipulation, or just do dumb shit on their own, like be unwilling to convict pretty people or accept evidence if it falls outside a personal narrative. Half-decent CGI and a subtly nodding spook would be very convincing to a panel of random people, and be less likely to fail than practical spycraft with actor-victims and sets and makeup.
@Gabriel LaVedier
As... Conspiracy as that is,I'll humor you. For a crime to be officially committed, you must have someone who is left worse off by it. If there is a video, but no body, no crime scene, and, more specifically, no motive, all you'd have is a video, not a crime. The person wouldn't even be arrested, because of habeas corpus. Someone would have to find evidence that the video happened for it to become a crime in the eyes of the law, like a someone reporting a missing person matching the one in the video, the police finding bloody tools in your house, or a witness who comes forth and speaks. Otherwise, the police can't consider it a crime, although they can investigate.
So you can commit crimes just by watching it on the computer, because it's "that high-def."
...
Man, isn't technology great?
@vifibi
Admittedly that was pretty out there. Though juries and police have fallen for less substantian crap before (Satanic Panic, anyone?)
A comment below mine actually kind of shows the logical consequence when you get professional criminals specializing in digital chicanery. Just as there are hitmen and forgers, there will be CGI mercenaries. Wife pays a fee and rather than collect on insurance she scoops up custody when bunny is suddenly in a compromising position with a boy scout. Or hubby gets a fat divorce settlement when he produces an epic sex tape for his lawyer.
Technology is beautiful but its most fascinating creation is the new criminals it makes.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
