Spokelse, you do realize it's not illegal to download or upload any gore/violence video, don't you?
I'm fairly knowledgeable in administrative and constitutional law, and I can assure you that downloading or uploading such videos falls squarely within the purview of protections provided by the First Amendment.
Oh sure, there's certain content that the "left-wing cancel culture" and even certain factions of the current regime in the WH doesn't like and would wish was unavailable, but the likes, dislikes, and wishes of certain groups and even government entities are irrelevant, because there actually has to be a law on the books that is being violated (lex rex est), and there are no such laws that would even remotely apply to this video.
Of course, protections of the First Amendment don't usually apply to expression that "facilitates violence in a specific way" as opposed to expression that "advocates violence in the abstract."
I quoted those two differentiators to draw attention to them, because they're direct quotes from settled opinion by the Court (the Court = SCOTUS)...settled opinion that has been in effect for decades. "Settled opinion" means, for example, it's something that even Ruth Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas agreed on.
In other words, even expression that "advocates violence in the abstract" is incontrovertibly protected by the First Amendment...there is no question about that.
First Amendment protection of expression that even "advocates violence in the abstract" has been robustly defended by the Supreme Court for decades...emphasis on the word "robustly" (again, something that even Ruth Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas agreed on, due to the settled opinion on the matter).
I will herein quote the SCOTUS opinion that designated it as a settled matter...
"Upholding the First Amendment requires preserving uninhibited, robust, and wide-open public expression, even if that means allowing individuals to express ideas that are deeply offensive to many."
In other words (if I might use a very accurate vernacular interpretation)...fuck your likes, your dislikes, and your offended feelings.
Expression that "facilitates violence in a specific way" is a very, very high bar to meet, and one that is not often met...a bar that is so high, that it's not even remotely applicable to any video that I've seen in the gore community...and most certainly not applicable to this specific video.
In fact, I have not seen a video in the gore community (including the video from Buffalo) that even "advocates violence in the abstract"...which is completely legal and robustly defended by the Supreme Court.
Actually, even the shooter, Payton Gendron (the guy who originally live-streamed his video) does not even meet the criteria with his video for an expression that "advocates violence in the abstract" (which is completely legal)...much less an expression that "facilitates violence in a specific way."
He'll of course be charged with murder, as well as numerous other offenses (which they always add on)...but he won't be charged with anything "terroristic" related to the video he uploaded (facilitating violence or otherwise)...because even a bush-league prosecutor would know that it doesn't meet any of the criteria.
Concerning this video, what the "left-wing cancel culture" specifically doesn't "like" and are "offended" by, is that it depicts blacks being shot and killed by a white guy.
Now if it depicted a black guy running over white people with his vehicle during a Christmas parade, then they wouldn't care. No, not at all...you could post such a video every day of the week, and twice on Sunday, and you wouldn't hear so much as a peep out of them.
Likewise, racially offensive terms towards white people, such as "honky," "cracker," "white bitch," etc....are completely a-okay with the "left-wing cancel culture," but the generic use of the "n-word"...in any way...draws their consternation and complaints. Yes...it's very obviously a lop-sided and inconsistent standard which they adhere to and employ...and their ultimate endgame is to control what can be seen, read, and even what can be spoken...and since they have no legal standing, their only method of control is intimidation.
Thus, since the whiners and complainers of the "left-wing cancel culture" don't have the law on their side, how are they to be dealt with? The one thing that must never be done is appeasement...it's the worst thing to do...and it never works...never.
Some folks think that if they appease them...just one time...that then they'll be left alone, because they are showing that they're being "cooperative." But no, that doesn't work...that's not the way this game is played.
The "left-wing cancel culture" views appeasement as fragility, and they hone in on that fragility and exploit it...and their demands always increase and intensify. Not a lot of the time, or most of the time...but always.
They've tried their intimidation tactics on sites that are admittedly "white supremacist," sites that routinely use the "n-word" and even express "neo-nazi" views, sites such as Storm Front for instance. However, Storm Front (and numerous others) use domain registrars and service providers that give a middle finger and a big "fuck you" to the "left-wing cancel culture" and "offended snowflakes," thus their whining and complaints are meaningless. Because everything on Storm Front...though very offensive to some people...is completely legal and is protected by...you guessed it...the First Amendment.
The guy who runs that site lives in Florida, he was visited several years ago by "representatives" shall we say of a government agency. He invited them in, listened to them, and then gave them a very polite "fuck you" (not in so many words, but let them know he was knowledgeable about the legality of his site and not intimidated by their scare tactics). Thus, they of course never came back.
When one is knowledgeable of one's rights and the law, the "power" of intimidation is instantly neutered.
Regards,
-Ward
