Two things:

First, I'm glad to see Margaret back, and while I'm not surprised that
she came out of "Lurk" for a porn debate, I for one wish she'd stay out
of lurk for some other stuff as well.

Second, here is the URL for a.f.u. FAQ page on snuff films. 

http://www.urbanlegends.com/classic/snuff.films/

Here's my take, after reading their stuff, and thinking for a while:

film has been around for 100+ years, and video for 30-40+ years. There
is no question that during that time, murders have probably been filmed.
God knows enough of them have been still-photographed.

Given human nature, there is no question that there is a market of folks
looking to buy video of a murder/accidental death. Hell, you can rent
that "Faces of Death" series at any mid-size indy video store.

HOWEVER, neither of these two facts really supports the "snuff film"
notion that is put forth by MacKinnon. Even she says "My opinion is
completely to the contrary to the FBI's. I know snuff films exist. These
so-called official people don't enjoy a lot of trust. In many cases
they've got one public line, while they move in another direction."
Asked to substantiate her claims, she replies, "To divulge anything
would jeopardize my own investigation. But believe me, they're out
there." 

Again, no proof is put forth. Most everyone else interviewed for the
article on the a.f.u. FAQ page seemed to agree that while there have
been instances of folks attempting to film murders, either the murder
was gonna happen with or without the filming, or the whole plot was
foiled before it started.

What interests me is that this has very little to do with pornography.
The anti-porn crusaders attempt to construct a fluid continuum, with
ultra-soft-core at one end, and these snuff films at the other, with the
implicit suggestion that the same core group of porn-industrialists is
responsible for the whole range.

Their goal, at least in part, is to illustrate their twofold claims:
that the industry as a whole is irrefutably evil and damaging, and that
it is fueled by greed, greed that is callous and cruel enough to justify
murder-for-film if the price is right.

But those claims are the very ones which have never been substantiated.
People kill other people for a million different reasons, nearly all of
which are illegal. If someone were killed specifically in order to film
the act, *that* would be illegal too. But nobody seems to be able to
produce even an account of this happening, let alone the films and the
underground distribution network which would have to exist in order to
transform a plain old murder into a murder-for-film-and-money.

So without any evidence of any sort of black market in snuff films (and
given how easy it is to realistically fake a death on film, I'm not sure
why anybody would be stupid enough to waste the time and resources to
actually kill someone for real), we're left with a bugaboo. Yes, people
get killed. No, surprisingly enough, there is no evidence whatsoever of
a perverted underground cult of folks who pay to watch movies of people
being killed (again, what kind of return could one expect to justify
such high risk--if, after all, the makers are only in it for the money).

And finally, even if there *were* an underground market in movies of
people being killed, is it reasonable to attempt to damn, say, Larry
Flynt because of it? I don't see the correlation. I mean, do you dole
out extra punishment to the kid who steals candy because at some point
you heard a rumor that his next-door neighbor might have stolen a car?

Ross