It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arrested for "Corrupting Morals" -- Luke Magnotta Fallout

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
According to the Criminal Code Of Canada,one can be charged with "Corruption Morals".



163. Corrupting morals

163. (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever; or

(b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation a crime comic.

(2) Every one commits an offence who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse,

(a) sells, exposes to public view or has in his possession for such a purpose any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever;

(b) publicly exhibits a disgusting object or an indecent show;

(c) offers to sell, advertises or publishes an advertisement of, or has for sale or disposal, any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method of causing abortion or miscarriage; or

(d) advertises or publishes an advertisement of any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method for restoring sexual virility or curing venereal diseases or diseases of the generative organs.

Defence of public good

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the public good was served by the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence and if the acts alleged did not extend beyond what served the public good.

Question of law and question of fact

(4) For the purposes of this section, it is a question of law whether an act served the public good and whether there is evidence that the act alleged went beyond what served the public good, but it is a question of fact whether the acts did or did not extend beyond what served the public good.

Motives irrelevant

(5) For the purposes of this section, the motives of an accused are irrelevant.


Before I go into the story that made this thread come to mind, let's examine this law a little closer shall we?

Let's start with some history.

E. Davie Fulton introduced this bill into parliament in 1949. It's original intent, was to protect children and the populace from the dangers posed by comic books.

At the time it was thought that violent depictions in film or in print media such as comic books were the cause for increased crime rates among youth and adults who stated the enjoyed them. So naturally, banning the stuff was the only answer.

The wording of the law is EXTREMELY ambiguous.


(a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever;


This definition above is so vague that most of the internet would be considered illegal by it. I would say with certainty that 99.9% of people have committed a crime under this code.

The story that brought this to my attention is in connection with the Luke Magnotta case from last year.

Mark Marek, owner of a former gore website was arrested and charged with Corrupting Morals by the RCMP after a year long investigation. The story can be found here.

To make a long story short, Mark posted the now infamous video of Magnotta killing and dismembering a Chinese undergraduate student. Mark was subsequently arrested more than year later as police allege he knowingly hosted the video after having received it directly from Magnotta and being told what was in it.

Now according to the story, some law enforcement and other judicial officials weren't even aware the law existed, much less used in present day times.

The law as shown above makes it illegal to advertise or sell fertility treatments. As the article above points out, Viagra is certainly still on sale.

Oh but wait!

The code precludes you from prosecution if the public interest was served. Another very ambiguous set of terms exists, or should I say does not, to explain this.

And yet, even though they look at the public interest as a means of determining guild, the code states clearly that the motive of the accused is irrelevant.

I've complained a lot about Canada Laws and the idiocy that is our bureaucracy. This takes it a step further.

Edit To Add; Furthermore, I would like to know exactly who the victim is in the this case? If the Crown is saying it was offended by the behavior exhibited by Mark, does that mean I can have my neighbor arrested because my 9 year old has to watch him strut around his yard in a speedo?

The law's language would certainly imply I could. So this is my main problem, there are no victims in this crime, those who visit his website did so intentionally, knowing what was there. He cooperated 100% with all the law enforcement involved at every step.

Thoughts ATS?

~Tenth
edit on 7/18/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/18/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/18/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
And 99.9% of cell phone owners could be charged under this outdated law.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

TFCJay
And 99.9% of cell phone owners could be charged under this outdated law.



Exactly.

It's entirely nonsensical and impossible to apply evenly in today's society.

~Tenth



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I think it's abhorrent that the Magnotta killing was posted on the internet, and this website sounds creepy and immoral. However, I think that these laws are kept in the books just so authorities can cherry pick who they prosecute under popular opinion.

Heck, I'm sure there are many antiquated laws still in the books. I'm sure somewhere there's a law forbidding your donkey from being on a leash no further than 20 feet from the curb or such nonsense.

I view most of the law as redundant bureaucracy, inflamed by populist tendencies and knee jerk reactions. The only real law IMO is Common Law.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Goldcurrent
 


Which is exactly why I asked them to show me the victim.

I too disagree with the website, I think gore porn is just..well wrong and the people who enjoy it have some slight psychosis to be honest with you.

This also sets precedent in Canada over what you can be charged with over the internet. What next, I post a little too much leg on FB and CSIS kicks my door down?

~Tenth



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Luka Magnotta should be fed into a woodchipper alive, feet first.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Hopefully this law will be used along with common sense. We still have freedom of speech in Canada. Under section 2 Fundamental rights. But in the Magnota case (murder porn) and I would put childporn in there as well, those individuals that submit said material should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and those who host said material should be brought to justice and servers dismantled permanently. IMHO



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by XLR8R
 



rosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and those who host said material should be brought to justice and servers dismantled permanently.


I agree 100% for thins like, child porn.

For gore however? Sure dismantle the content, but to remove one's freedom? For what purpose?

Why do they deserve to be jailed for that? Why do I have to pay for one more, non violent inmate?

~Tenth



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I think only way poster could be charged is most of the pictures are confidential documents(crime scene pictures etc etc), and spreading them can be illegal.

I'm sure the Victims family would not appreciate it.


I seen gore before.. i felt dizzy after few pics.. never seen any after... i guess some need to experience it...



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

A person knowingly hosting a video of an other individual killing and dismembering another could be considered Accessory after the fact. IMHO he was enabling Magnota or at the least encouraging him to commit some more atrocities. Don't you think?



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I would think it depends on the context of which it was posted?
I assume the Mounties would have found evidence that suggested he did it to inspire others perhaps?

I don't believe they would pursue a case if they believed it was out of a more "educational" basis.
I've seen gory things on the internet that I learned from in many ways, would I post any?
No, but I still watch them from time to time if I come across them simply to learn.

This case though, I can see why they wouldn't want that video to spread, especially because the incident actually took place in Canada. It doesn't take much to inspire a copycat.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


I used to watch the operation back in the day. Sometimes that really got to me. Open heart surgery, no problem. Amputation, kind of hard to watch. The hardest thing I had to watch for some reason, don't ask me why I have no idea is a toe surgery. Jeez I had a hard time watching that. Well, anyway. I can understand stuff like that being considered educational. But Magnota...no.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by XLR8R
I can understand stuff like that being considered educational. But Magnota...no.


The only thing "educational" I would consider of this Magnotta case is of the abilities for mankind to do harm to it's own. That's what I meant. You don't take away the other aspects from such videos.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


Yep. Horrible isn't it?



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by XLR8R
 



IMHO he was enabling Magnota or at the least encouraging him to commit some more atrocities. Don't you think?


I doubt Magnotta told him that was him in the video killing a guy.

If that was the case, then movies like Saw or Hostel should be outlawed. Those IMO encourage and glorify bloody murder and torture.

See where the fine line is between censorship and common sense?

This guy here probably posted thousands of videos and images of the same nature, he can't be guilty of one and not the others.

~Tenth



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I don't think you can compare big budget movies with cast members, a crew, tax receipts
with a home video posted on some seedy site. But I get your point. He probably though it was some homegrown special effects or something like that.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by XLR8R
 


I would say the big budget film is worse on the psyche than seeing the real stuff.

Justification and conditioning of violence among other behaviors is much easier when you think what's going on isn't real.

~Tenth



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I personally find this a travesty of intelligence. Unless there is some angle whereby the police have reason to beleive that he was more involved, for example, I have often thought that he recieved the full video and then cut out the killing in order to cover himself, then I can see no reason why he should be harrassed, especially so long after the case.

Im insulted by the Canadian police action, but im also holding fire as there could be more to it. It could be that Magnotta is claiming he sent the whole video. I always wondered why he wouldnt, doesnt make sense.

But to leverage some ancient law from the 1940's aimed at comics and their depiction of crime is perverted in its own right. Our main stream media is full of realistic crime. Every horror movie would be banned.

I think they must have more on him and only want to grab hold of him because he did effectivly flee, whilst he wasnt aware police were investigating him he left Canada nearly a year ago and only now returned. There has to be a reason for that.

I myself live in exile from police state England and so I understand his concerns. He is on his own. They really do make stuff up and no one really does anything about it.

Even Carter has just come out supporting Snowden and saying that democracy has died.

Our world is dead.

I can only hope that the Canadian police and government have a good reason to do what they are doing.

Gore sites are strange things. I look maybe twice a year and did so today, and it made me sort of sick, but thats the sensation you go there for and its quite important to experience that because only then can you truly comment on our real crimes.

I also think we need sites like this in the open so you can accept you have a problem if you 'like' them. They are critical to our understanding of life.

I remember when I was in youth prison they showed gore films, mainly medical stuff, genitals in zips, bones breaking through skin. And it made me sick. They showed it deliberatly to educate us villians of the pain that violence causes. I have never inflicted that sort of pain or injury but it certainly had an effect on me, especially when going to the toilet.

Point is, in moderation (1-2 times a year?) they can be a healthy kick that make you thankful for your good health and well being in a western world.

If the Canadians are just attacking the owner of a gore site in order to scre him away and enforce a politically correct main stream media then we might as well sign our lives to the machine and prepare to perform oral actions that might compromise our personal integrity or something like that. Its the end of freedom.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I can only speak for myself but as much as I like gore in Hollywood movies, I'm a horror movie buff, I have a hard time with the real thing. I have been to a few sites in the past but I never could get what attracted people to such atrocities. To tell you the truth it kind of screwed with my head for a while.

I've been witness to a pretty bad car accident in my teens were I was asked to help pull a passenger out of a car. She was pretty messed up but it never hit me as much as those sites did. The adrenaline maybe, maybe the fact I helped save her life, I dunno. I can't say with out a shadow of a doubt that Hollywood has desensitized me but when I see harm deliberately done to people it does make me sad, disgusted, repulsed, mad. I guess it depends on ones moral values.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by XLR8R
 



To tell you the truth it kind of screwed with my head for a while.


I used to love horror and gore movies. Until one day it dawned on me that I should find all of this repulsive. That violence and gore should never be celebrated or made out to be normal.

I realized I was so wrapped up in the media's ideology, while spouting the opposite in places like ATS or in my community.

IMO Hollywood's crime is not only the desensitization, it also makes you care less about things that don't directly effect you. Like a war in another country.

Blurring the lines between reality and fantasy, by using movies and TV is a great way of creating a society that can watch a war unfold live on TV while eating popcorn.

~Tenth



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join