Homicide and Gore videos, same as CSA?

So I’ve been thinking a little.

All of us and almost everyone supports banning CSA because it’s morally wrong to watch. Most people wouldn’t say the same about murder or suicide videos. I haven’t thought of a meaningful difference between them. So I sort of decided that it’s wrong to watch gore videos for your own enjoyment i’m not really sure of that though.

I can’t think off a meaningful way that there different but maybe someone else can.


Wait, are we talking about the real stuff or the fictional stuff? I’m pretty sure that terrorist execution videos are still illegal. As for fiction, literally anything goes.

1 Like

No like real shit. Most people think fictional violence is ok but our society has tought them to hate pedophiles and lolicon.

I’m not if some gore is illegal but I know most isn’t and can be found easily.


Gore is illegal in most countries, but consumers are not really prosecuted. I have yet to hear about a case where someone was charged for just watching or being in posession of one. Germany however also punishes art that depicts gore with up to one year in prison or a fine (§131 StGB).

1 Like

In theory, there is practically no difference. In practice, the biggest difference is that gore videos don’t bother people, at least their existence doesn’t bother them. As for CSA videos, we know it’s a different story. That’s why people are arrested for watching the second and not the first. As I always say, people use emotion and not reason to judge these things.

1 Like

A lot of people watch gore videos out of curiosity. They might not enjoy it, but they technically support its existence as well. There are definetly people out there that enjoy it and some that might even get pleasure from gore. Same applies to any media which is also reflected in CSA offenders. A good chunk was not diagnosed with pedophilia, or pedophilic disorder. Both are wrong to watch no matter the intention.


I’m sure it’s not illegal to watch those videos where I live. In fact, I remember seeing videos of car accidents (with the victims) at my driving school as part of the course about safety. Although I remember that people were given the choice to refuse to see it. But anyway, I have a mixed opinion about it.
I think it’s very… strange, the existence of things that you can get arrested just for looking at it. It reminds me a lot of the problem of thought crime. BUT, on the other hand, I’m not in favor of legalizing CSA videos. So… again, I have a mixed opinion.

1 Like

I think videos of accidents or the aftermath are not illegal. It’s when gore becomes sadistic (torturing, killing, abusing with the intent to gain pleasure, or praising it). Here is an example from Discords Community Guidelines:

You may not share images of sadistic gore or animal cruelty.


Well, what you said there seems to me dangerously close to something I’m talking about in another topic, that I’m calling: “emotion-based censorship”. Anyway, I COULD agree with you, but for that, I need a more logical and rational reason.

1 Like

they’re not, at least in the US where we’re from. Gore and the like are considered free speech.

The rationale for violence of this kind is contingent on the fact that the content isn’t being made just to kill people. As in, maniacs aren’t going around pulling people off the streetjust to create a red room video, or if it’s happening, it’s not enough to warrant a First Amendment exception, unlike child pornography.

People still like to forget that CP being illegal isn’t because of the empirically unfounded belief that it will incite viewers to commit acts of real-world child sex abuse, but rather because of the interest in protecting the children abused or exploited to create the material. So in a way there is a causal connection with child sex abuse and child pornography consumption, but in a different way. Pedo-haters get angry when you tell them this.

1 Like

In the UK, it is illegal to posess “extreme pornography”, which includes extremely violent or possibly lethal attacks. However, the material must have some sexual content to come under this law; as far as I am aware, extreme violence without any sexual aspect is quite legal (although they might come under other less specific laws).

It is absurd that having film of a boy playing with himself will result in a criminal record, but film of the same boy being maimed or killed quite possibly won’t.


Unethical, IMO, unless they consent to it. But not on the same level as viewing CSAM, since the market for gore videos is much smaller than the market for CSAM videos that you encourage by viewing them.


My stance on homicide/gore/rekt content is that, unless or until a market forms in which maniacs are going around butchering people or setting up scenarios which would produce said content, then it shouldn’t be banned, even if it depicts something particularly awful, like the Christchurch NZ shooting video.

The rationale for criminalizing CP/CSAM is predicted on the fact that the material would not exist unless an actual child were deliberately exploited for sexual purposes, meaning therein lies a motive that’s intrinsically linked to acts of child sex abuse.
This differs from the majority of gore/rekt content, which is mostly incidental or “in the moment”, as opposed to a causal rationale wherein the underlying violence would not have occurred should the motivation for content creation were not present.

While admittedly snuff content does exist for the sake of showcasing death, these instances are rare.


In the US the only form of illegal gore was " animal crush videos" On april 20 2020 it was overturned though.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Banning Crush Videos)

The original law criminalizing depiction of animal cruelty for commercial purposes was struck down by the Supreme Court on April 20 2010 because it was substantially overbroad and depiction of animal cruelty is not integral to criminal conduct. Congress then introduced a bill to specifically criminalize “animal crush videos”, which requires a depiction to be obscene to be considered “animal crush videos” to prevent further First Amendment challanges. The law specifically banning “animal crush videos” is valid currently.

1 Like

I can’t speak to any of the other conversations this has sparked, but as someone who watches IRL gore videos for… a variety of reasons, sometimes including self-harm, I’ll try to weigh in.

If you’re coming from the perspective that part of why CSAM is/should be illegal is that it creates Supply And Demand (I’m not gonna argue about whether that’s true or not, but I assume that’s part of the underlying assumption in your post, sorry if I’m wrong), I don’t think gore creates the same need – partially because we’ve already debunked the possibility.

  1. Snuff film hysteria, as an extension of Satanic Panic: While snuff films do sort of exist, some sections of the film industry tried very very very hard to profit off the sensationalism of it in the 70s and 80s – yet we did not, in fact, see a spike in people trying to capitalize on that by actually murdering+recording it.

  2. Most of the gore videos online are 100% accidental – usually work-site incidents and criminal negligence. Their uploading has more to do with covering shocking news, sometimes in order to gain public attention to a serious issue; see: a lot of Chinese-sourced gore videos come from actual Chinese news stations.

  3. While people do seek out famous homicides, the few times people made gore videos for attention, they did not inspire many copycats. The 1 Icepick guy was a relatively one-off incident, for example.

  4. Also, not exactly the same, though close: medical students upload medical gore pictures all the time for second opinions/peer-to-peer fascination. There’s a whole subreddit for it. Hard to say posting a video of the car accident that caused the trauma wound should be illegal, but not the trauma wound itself for some reason, right?

I can’t provide super concrete sources, bc this is… a tough subject to research for me unless I’m in a very specific headspace. I would recommend watching Reignbot’s videos on Youtube about snuff, maybe? Possibly track down info on the history of LiveLeak? Not sure. But like, this IS a topic that’s caused many a pearl clutching in the past… only to not amount to much when looking at actual statistics. At least, in my experience.

Sorry if this isn’t too helpful, but maybe it’s a perspective others can appreciate.


Yeah but just because you see a machete fight doesn’t mean that you have to post it to a website.
I also think that in reverse it doesn’t work like if you see a child getting raped on the side of the streat you presumably don’t think that that should be allowed to be uploaded.