“if monetizing a video of a crime can pay for the damages caused by the crime and there were no injuries, no deaths, no falsehoods portrayed, and no undermining of an election occurs then the crime will be recorded but no fines or penalties shall be levied.”
Maybe let the victim pick between charging the attacker or getting all proceeds from the monetized video? Probably lead to lots of people deliberately setting up increasingly complex ways for a friend to attack them, then they split the proceeds. Hmm, the rational part of me says bad idea, but the descended-from-folks-that-loved-watching-gladiator-fights part of me would totally watch.
how would they word a law like this?
how can we objectively define what is funny or not?
Internet polls
Nah, then we would have people vote bombing for people like Trump to get off because inciting Jan 6. was “funny”.
Yes, that’s the joke. There would always be some group voting that kitten genocide is funny
that sounds like a great idea honestly
“if monetizing a video of a crime can pay for the damages caused by the crime and there were no injuries, no deaths, no falsehoods portrayed, and no undermining of an election occurs then the crime will be recorded but no fines or penalties shall be levied.”
Maybe let the victim pick between charging the attacker or getting all proceeds from the monetized video? Probably lead to lots of people deliberately setting up increasingly complex ways for a friend to attack them, then they split the proceeds. Hmm, the rational part of me says bad idea, but the descended-from-folks-that-loved-watching-gladiator-fights part of me would totally watch.