Circulation of Snuff Films

Words in all caps are meant to emphasized. Clarifications: I think that it would be prudent to clarify what a snuff film is. Snuff Film - A snuff film or snuff movie is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual death or murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation. Though many films featuring real deaths exist, such for-profit films are generally regarded as an urban legend. . http://en.wikipedia.org... ~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~ ///Before I continue, I would like to point out that the underworld industry of the snuff film market is considered by many to be an urban legend. The films I am about to mention, were not made for profit or entertainment, therefore they do not classify as a snuff film, however they feature the same content, which is death. The assassination of John F. Kennedy has been shown on many documentaries surrounding that particular subject. Most people aren't offended by seeing the footage on television, even though is shows the president being shot. An even more vivid example would be the public suicide of R. Budd Dwyer, who stuck the barrel of a .357 S&W Magnum in his mouth and pulled the trigger. WPVI in Philadelphia showed the full video, as did WPXI. Both films were also shown without the consent of the people who perished in them, so it would be hypocritical to let these films be legally shown and not snuff films. /// I would say that a video that contains real death does not make that video a snuff film. If it did Every war documentary with battlefield footage would be considered a snuff film. My opponent's examples do not have many of the elements of a snuff film including being made for profit and entertainment. There's also the fact that these two incidents happened in PUBLIC. This fact brings up the issue of implied consent [2] which is legally defined as consent that is inferred from signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence. While these individuals may not have given explicit consent, their consent to be filmed was implied by the fact that they were in public. This is the same consent that is used by news organizations to show footage. ~ ///My opponent makes a pretty good point, but there is also the possibility that the people who gave consent new they were going to die. Take for example the case of Armin Meiwes, who found another man through the Internet who agreed to be "slaughtered and then consumed", as part of a sexual fetish. The event was taped, but I'm not sure if it was intended to be distributed or not. And again, this debate isn't about the making of a snuff film, but it's distribution and the people who possess such videos. /// The issue with this occurrence is that since Armin's victim is dead, there is no way to determine whether or not he was legally able to give consent to the actions that he gave consent to. It is also a separate matter that criminal activity perpetrated where all individuals are consenting is still illegal [3]. ~ I look forward to my opponent's response. [1] . http://www.wikipedia.org... I apologize for not providing a real link in round one. [2] . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...