Death Addict Blog

Libertas

Pocos Pero Locos
Apr 19, 2016
1,113
2,358
113
Marek was under scrutiny for ages for violating Hate Speech laws. They used an ancient odd law to nab him in an effort to prosecute him for those crimes.
Hey man,
Please share what you know regarding the case. I'm kinda interested :))

Any idea if it's true that Mark himself edited the video, and not Luka?

EDIT: @SpecterP will be corrected when I get some extra time for the blog, it's a copy-pasta job from the "Articles" section of DA right now.
 

Libertas

Pocos Pero Locos
Apr 19, 2016
1,113
2,358
113
@Libertas had Marek edited the raw footage he'd be a co conspirator to murder after the fact. Doubt he would admit that ever.
That is what I am getting at, actually. There was no upload function on "BestGore.com" to speak of, so the only way Luka could have sent Mark the file(s) would have been over email as an attachment and/or as a link from a file sharing site.

Now, since the video does appear to be extensively edited, watermarked placed rather carefully (so it can't be cropped out) and posted in a much lower quality than what it's been filmed in (likely to reduce bandwidth costs) it makes me think that Mark was most definitely aware of what happened, and therefore didn't have any protection whatsoever to speak of like for example, Facebook or 8chan had in the New Zealand shooter case. They had no part in it whatsoever, nor was there any pre-moderation taking place like on BestGore.
 

SpecterP

Death Addict
VIP
May 22, 2018
1,896
1,803
113
USA
At first I wondered why Luka never included the actual murder then figured he revealed his face on camera during it. The trial revealed this is how it happened and thus Luka had to splice footage with a different man into the first minute to try to achieve his goal.
 

SpecterP

Death Addict
VIP
May 22, 2018
1,896
1,803
113
USA
That is what I am getting at, actually. There was no upload function on "BestGore.com" to speak of, so the only way Luka could have sent Mark the file(s) would have been over email as an attachment and/or as a link from a file sharing site.

Now, since the video does appear to be extensively edited, watermarked placed rather carefully (so it can't be cropped out) and posted in a much lower quality than what it's been filmed in (likely to reduce bandwidth costs) it makes me think that Mark was most definitely aware of what happened, and therefore didn't have any protection whatsoever to speak of like for example, Facebook or 8chan had in the New Zealand shooter case. They had no part in it whatsoever, nor was there any pre-moderation taking place like on BestGore.
Luka sent it as a cousin of his one article stated. It was under a guise in an email. But already edited and Marek just added the watermark as usual.
 

Libertas

Pocos Pero Locos
Apr 19, 2016
1,113
2,358
113
Ah, but still, you don't have any protection as a website operator if you're the one posting the material. UGC (User Generated Content) sites only work one way, although I guess he would have been arrested regardless, since the local authorities really didn't like him nor his site. So they'd trump up the charges I guess...
 

SpecterP

Death Addict
VIP
May 22, 2018
1,896
1,803
113
USA
Even if you assume everything is fake? How does that work exactly? Meaning as a site owner what are your actual legal responsibility in this type of case? Beyond forwarding the evidence.
 

Libertas

Pocos Pero Locos
Apr 19, 2016
1,113
2,358
113
Well for one, you wouldn't want anything like this owned directly by yourself, meaning on your own info or operating it as some sort of a "sole proprietorship" or as a hobby site. Both options would fuck you royally should any legal issues arise. You'd have absolutely ZERO legal protection.

Only two sensible options would be to use completely bogus info and rely on anonymity, or go with a typical corporate structure and form an LLC for the site and/or any other assets like theYNC does.

Granted, you'd have to follow a bunch of rules even then, if you want to keep your ass safe in case of any potential legal issues, either from the govt. or from someone's family.

For example, you'd have to make sure that everything goes live immediately, and that you're not the one posting any content whatsoever. If you "just" manage the site itself or its infrastructure, and actual users are the ones generating all the content, then I'd say you'd definitely be OK legally speaking as long as you didn't fuck up somewhere else. Assuming you're in the USA, and that you're not mixing gore + porn like DocumentingReality.com owner did.

Also, paying users to post content would also be a huge no-no.

Offering any incentives for users to post content could further the prosecution's case against you actually...

LiveLeak is a good example of a 100% legal operation.
 

SpecterP

Death Addict
VIP
May 22, 2018
1,896
1,803
113
USA
There's gore and porn here so what's the difference? Or are you Liberia based? I kid. Just fuzzy on how you get away with not having a minimum age here.
 

Libertas

Pocos Pero Locos
Apr 19, 2016
1,113
2,358
113
DocumentingReality.com guy is in Florida, they brought him up on obscenity charges, and this was when the site was called NowThatsFuckedUp.com... he had U.S. soldiers stationed overseas send him photos of dead Iraqis, etc. For that, he'd give them free access to naked photos of female NTFU users. He cried free speech.

As far as DA goes, it's not owned by anybody, really.

Only sure way to prevent minors from accessing sites like these would be something like AgeID | Your Access to the World of Age-Restricted Websites.
 
Top