I literally almost threw up my coffee when I clicked on Michelle Tsai's "Being gored by a bull" article link to "impaled against the wall" pointed me to an actual Youtube video of a girl dying on camera!!! The fact that this kind of extreme voyeuristic crap exists on the internet is unavoidable, but having a link to it without some kind of warning (e.g. "girl dies in this clip, if you don't like watching death on screen, this is not a link for you") is profoundly disturbing. I assumed the link was pointing to a news article or some wikipedia entry or at most a photo of a torero (true, I should have checked the url it was pointing to but I don't do that with every link I click on, especially not on Slate), but not some tourist getting mauled while shrieks of terror pierce the living room at 10 am!!!

This is now the 3rd thread devoted to this topic. It's truly a horrible authorial and editorial decision on the part of Slate. I don't know of any way to bring it to Slate's attention besides these forums. I suppose a letter-to-the-editor of the Post?

Somehow, I think people would feel differently (i.e., more outraged) if there were a link to the Daniel Pearl video snuck in the middle of some article.

So the hyperlink to the article of, "How bad is it to be gored by a bull?" and its title, "I Was Gored By a Bull" didn't provide an inkling to what may lie ahead. Yes, dying is a notch above (or is it below?) being gored, but there's no surprise in the death which resulted from being gored.

Would the warning suggested of, "girl dies in this clip" really have sufficed? Would there have been less living room shrieking had the girl been stomped to a pulp, but was still breathing a little? What if she were paralyzed? No "girl dies in this clip" caveat for those results, but certainly one may desire a warning before clicking one of those links, right? Something like, "Depending on what you're expecting from clicking a link about angry bulls chasing people, you may be offended, saddened or terrorized. Proceed with caution."

Are we really clicking hyperlinks in stories about the running of the bulls hoping for a video of a bull gliding down colorful city streets among merry revelers. In hyperlink-la-la-land, our friend Mr. Bull, with his hooves well-oiled to ensure that he falls and slips upon being surrounded, taunted and hit with sticks, never causes harm. And if he does, he certainly never kills!

In fact, any and every hyperlink of this foolish, disgusting "event" should redirect to a video of people getting gored -- to death. Once a runner or spectator makes his senseless, cruel bed that day, s/he gets to pull those covers up nice & tight and lie in it. I mean, did you see those horns!? I wouldn't even want to be in Spain, let alone Pamplona, let alone within 50 feet of a bull during this thing.

The article didn't try to coddle our senses -- the references and language were macabre throughout and the hyperlink was in line with the article's overall tone. We need to take responsibility for clicking hyperlinks without looking at the url but then expecting either a warning, or -- a link to a wikipedia entry? Now that would have offended me.

Btw, in one of the 8 threads on this topic, someone compared the unexpected shock of this video of a death to that of David Pearl -- yes, I know it was totally just a "what-if" the video of Pearl's decapitation had been shown without warning and... Don't defend it. You're forgiven.

"The fact that this kind of extreme voyeuristic crap exists on the internet is unavoidable, but having a link to it without some kind of warning"

The text of the hyperlink is "IMPALED BY A BULL". If this is not a big enough clue that unpleasant content is approaching, perhaps YouTube's age verification requirement is, or the warning that appears on the linked site: "This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community."

Ah, well. He who cannot take the hint, takes the consequences.

There is no evidence that the woman died. According to the info with the film clip, she survived with relatively modest injuries (I mean, considering she was gored by a bull and all...)

She's also not listed among the fatalities associated with the Running of the Bulls.

So, it's a disturbing clip... but it's almost certainly not a snuff clip.

And yet, in my opinion, still too disturbing to be put behind a blind link. I take responsibility for the oversight, since I edited the piece. We'll be stripping the link shortly.