Is it really so hard to understand that some people draw the line between the two things you mentioned? Especially when those advocating it not be illegal, may consider the video of mass murder to be news, or audiovisual documentation worthy of preserving as evidence of the events that have transpired.
I know that people draw a line, that’s implicit from me saying that people make the distinction between those two things. What I said was personally I don’t understand why they draw that line.
> news, or audiovisual documentation worthy of preserving as evidence of the events that have transpired.
They can archive and preserve it themselves, or using services that want to facilitate that, and be subject to whatever local laws may permit or prohibit that. As you said laws vary by jurisdiction.
The anger at FB for not wanting to be party to disseminating this video of a horrific crime really is hard to understand.
It doesn’t all seem purely about this case of whether a social network should be required to distribute propaganda videos of mass murder.
Personally I don’t get why people are okay with distribution of child porn being illegal, but think that distribution of mass murder videos shouldn’t be illegal AND ALSO now apparently must be required of any internet company.