Unfiltered life fights against the push for censorship
By Hannah McDonald
Recent events revolving around the Facebook Killer have garnered national attention and opened the floodgates for a debate that has been steadily building in recent months. Should live stream videos be delayed to allow content to be censored? And if so, whose job is it?
On April 16, Easter Sunday, Robert Godwin Sr. was killed on the street by Steve Stephens, 37. Godwin, 74, was walking along a street in Cleveland, Ohio when Stephens pulled up next to him. After asking Godwin to repeat the name “Joy Lane,” Stephens pulled a gun on the father of 10 and grandfather of 14. Godwin was shot, killed and fell to the sidewalk. What is known now is that Stephens “snapped,” over an ex girlfriend, presumably, Joy Lane.
As horrific as this is, murders happen on the street, everyday and across the world. What makes this incident stand out is that Stephens broadcast it through a series of live videos on his Facebook account. Due to the nature of social media and viral content, the videos were rapidly shared and spread across the internet.
This is not the first time that violent crimes and acts have been broadcast over the internet. In Miami, Naika Venant, a 14-year-old girl conducted a two hour Facebook Live from the bathroom of her foster parent’s home. During this she fashioned a homemade noose out of a scarf and hanged herself. The Florida Department of Children and Families confirmed that Naika passed away.
Early in January of this year, another similar event transpired. Katelyn Nicole Davis, a 12-year-old from Georgia, used Facebook’s live streaming feature to post a video claiming she had been sexually and physically abused by a relative. At about the halfway point in the video, Katelyn can be seen putting a rope up in a tree near her Cedartown home. After apologizing to God, her friends and claiming she “didn’t deserve to live,” Katelyn hanged herself while the video was still streaming.
There are a multitude of cases like this; people using the live stream service to broadcast taking their own lives. Although this is different than the incident that took place on Sunday, it is similar in the sense that the — ironically named Facebook Live — service is being used to widely share death.
Should streamed video broadcasts like this be delayed, censored and altered before being delivered to the public?
On one side of the debate many believe the answer to this is “yes.” Censoring live streamed videos would cut down on the amount of negative and violent content that makes it onto the internet for someone to share, or worse, unintentionally stumble upon.
Ending or cutting down on the sharing of violent Facebook Live videos is also more respectful to the families of the deceased and those who pass away. Would you want the video of your grandfather being murdered shared thousands of time, for everyone to see? Do you want that to accidentally pop up on your news feed because you have mutual friends? Probably not.
Choosing to censor live streamed services would also cut down on the liability of social media and websites. If they didn’t allow videos of violence to be posted on their platform, there would be no way for them to be accused to promoting such violence.
Those who argue yes also believe that if videos of this nature were to stop being shared, they would be less romanticized. Romanticization is not in the question in conjunction with the Stephens’s case, but for suicide it is. A video broadcast sharing one’s pain for all to see and feel is, in many ways, considered beautifully tragic. ere is even a Netflix original show trending right now about how sharing this will make people realize what they’ve done and how one will live on, forever in memory as a gorgeous and troubled soul. If these videos are censored, then people will stop trying to post it and the glamorization of suicide will decrease.
Across the table, those who stand for totally uncensored live stream videos have an argument of their own.
The idea of Facebook Live was to stream the most intimate moments of one’s life to share with friends. Arguably, the last moments of one’s life are the
most intimate. Broadcasting them may seem like an invasion of privacy, but isn’t it the choice of the user to show or not show what they please on their personal live stream? In the eyes of individuals on this side of the debate, censorship would be an infringement on freedom.
Along with this, the individuals who are choosing to broadcast this violence obviously want it shared widely. Social media is a good way to do it. It is clear that Stephens wanted to make a statement with his killing. Imagine what other methods he might have used to make it, had he not had the option to broadcast it.
It is hard to imagine all of these things, or to put oneself in the shoes of individuals who have used live video services to share the death of others or themselves. It is difficult to imagine the thoughts and questions that one would weigh while making this choice.
If you are reading this, it is assumed that you have never been in this situation — and hopefully — never will be, but you should still care about this debate.
The majority of individuals in this country today use some form of social media. Across the board, they have almost all developed services similar to Facebook Live to broadcast one’s life.
If this is censored, your everyday life could be changed. Your videos will all either need to have the audio screened for trigger words or your videos will all need to be watched before being shared.
What if you are playing a video game while live streaming? Will the sound of gunshots trip an audio censor and disable your video from going live? What about something simple like a joke? What if a word in it is on the list of things that cause the video to be unfit for public placement?
Hypotheticals aside, if censoring live videos becomes the norm, how comfortable do you feel with a stranger watching you? In most cases of live streaming, it is not broadcast to the millions of internet users, unfiltered. Instead it is shared with a group of followers, friends or possibly a more niche group. If outlets choose to review these videos, you will have to get used to the idea of having your chosen friends or followers watch you live, along with an unseen stranger. Creepy.
If, by chance, the argument for censorship wins out and the choice is made to alter and review live videos, whose job will it be? Will this responsibility be placed in the hands of the sites on which the content is to be posted or is it left to the government?
Social media sites would be required to hire more staff or create and upgrade technology to make the system work. On top of this, their user base may decrease as those who feel they should not have their live videos censored boycott the site. And as far as the government reaching in to do the job, well, that’s a question of governmental power overstepping boundaries which can be heard and seen nearly everywhere today.
As young people, we should be concerned with this collection of events and the debate at hand. We are living in the digital age, so this is not something that will be going away in the foreseeable future. If live videos become censored, in 10 or even two years, what other aspects of our lives will be watched over? This all still may seem like grains of sand to some but it is bound to be something much bigger, soon.
