Transcript for Facebook Find: When is it Wrong to Watch?
Images burning up the news feeds. From the horrifying. New and gruesome video appearing to show a second American hostage executed. By terrorists from Isis. -- To the scandalous. Photos of some of the biggest stars, Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, stolen and posted online. Spanning the globe at warp speed. And sparking a new debate. When is it wrong to watch? Okay, let's take that on now with two columnists thinking hard about theeds questions. David Carr just taking his seat from "The New York times." Emily basilon from slate. I'll let you take a breath, David. You said you had no interest in watching, especially the execution videos at first, but you did to write about them. And you were struck by how sophisticated they are. It's amazing to me that such a medieval sort of message, which is, we will chop the head off of anyone who gets in our way, can get such traction in a modern media world. If you look at sort of the -- production values, it's almost HD, they have lapel Mikes on. It's breathtaking. The thing you want to do is, look away. You don't want -- just personally, it's so revolting. But you've talked to your colleagues in the middle of all this who say, maybe that's not the right thing. I think it's important for people to know what we're up against in terms of what tactically could happen. And, for my colleagues, you know, it's important for them to watch because western journalists are a target. And, the -- I think Americans need to know that there are people out there that not only hate us but are willing to do anything to get our attention. And it creates a difficult choice for all of us in journalism. Perhaps far less is at stake with the hacked celebrity photos. You have written about it. Still disturbing. You suggest that not watching may not be enough. That congress should step in and do something about it. I think there are not enough remedies for people who have become victims of nonconsensual pornography. There are plenty of photos that people have consented to publish. If you have not consented, that is a real privacy violation. We're not valuing the privacy of the people who are victims of these kinds of -- this kind of exposure enough. What does congress do? Well, congress could make it ease ciier for people who are victims to bring suits and, against particularly websites that get a lot of traffic. Out of promoting these photos knowing that the people who have subjects of them don't want them up there and see it as a violation of privacy. David? I think there are a number of remedies already out there. 11 states have enacted laws against revenge porn. There's a copyright approach. A privacy approach. The problem, and I think that -- what Emily and others are upset about is very, very real. The intrusion is very significant because once it's out there, it will never -- it will never go away, right? But in general, you can't break part of the internet. It's a web, right? And I was struck, Emily. Reddit says every man is responsible for its own soul. They're not going to do anything about it. They're not going to change their policies at all. They're going to put up whatever people want to put up. Though they did pull down the page that was circulating all of the celebrity hack photos. I think a recognition that this is a norm that needs the change. From a place that has felt free to publish all kinds of other images. It's an interesting shift. One worth paying attention to. And one that will continue? Yeah, there's, um -- I think what's changed about this is the viewer is somewhat implicated in terms of some of the people whose pictures were out there tweeted out and said, I hope you're happy with what you're doing. I think the change in behavior cc1 Test message
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.