We live in the world of 24/7, in your face, here-and-now media. And whilst I am the first to admit that I take full advantage of all news media being offered to me, ashamedly even Perez Hilton, I also think that there has to be a breaking point. There needs to be a line drawn clearly in the sand that says, “stop here and do not cross.” But is there?
Take for instance YouTube. Again, I am a fan, but the most recent controversy surrounding the network is rather bothersome. If the fact that eight Florida teenagers beating their peer and rendering her unconscious wasn’t enough to catch my attention in the news, how about the fact that I could watch the whole entire “animalistic” fight on YouTube?
Was it for five minutes of fame? Was it to empower themselves? I can not even begin to fathom what thought process would go behind something like that attack but I do know that they received the attention they were so desperately seeking.
Revisiting my above statement, where is that media line? Although it is unclear who actually posted the beating onto YouTube, shouldn’t someone take the fall for allowing something as disturbing as this to be viewed over and over again? It is not as if YouTube stepped in and removed the video, or even as if we consumers said “enough is enough” and stopped viewing the horrific thing.
From a legal standpoint, YouTube and other online service providers are largely exempt from liability because of a 1996 anti-pornography law. One provision says Internet service providers are not considered publishers simply because they retransmit information provided by their users or other sources. Federal courts have applied that broadly to cover not just Internet access providers, but also video-sharing sites, message boards and other online services.
I understand that YouTube essentially has no obligation to be a traffic cop and that we all have the right to air whatever ‘dirty laundry’ we choose, but I think that at some point someone needs to be held responsible and if you are going to be that multi-million dollar company such as YouTube then you need to have standards.
By the way, 7 of the teenagers in the video are being charged as adults. Their bail is set at $30,000 a piece and they face charges of kidnapping, battery and witness tampering.
Interestingly enough, the Google-owned YouTube declined to comment on the aired attack and stated that its general policies call for the removal of clips that show someone getting hurt, attacked or humiliated. Hmm…. wouldn’t this fall under all three of those categories?
Now the million dollar question… Should YouTube and other video-media outlet sites be held responsible for making the decisions whether or not to air a video and determine if there are any legal ramifications associated with such? I honestly have to say that in this case I think YouTube was in bad taste and needs to re-examine it’s posting process.
Clearly they broke policy. If there general policy is to not show people getting attacked, humiliated or hurt. In this in-your face you tube world I think that several individuals need to be held accountable. They don’t know who posted it? How can that be, I’m not tech savvy but those guys are and they should be able to get to the bottom of it. It’ll be interesting to see how this unravels.
I vote to keep it up…and in the comments on youtube should be the sentance these girls and guys got for kidnapping and assault, and conspirecey.
Youtube and the dagger are just a mirror on ourselves. The comments and junk we post on such venues…myspace included…WE POST. Condemnation and scorn will not happen if no one is aware of an event.
Don’t condemm those who let you see or make you aware of peoples stupidity….and arrogance…and evil deeds.
CONDEMM THOSE WHO COMMIT THESE ACTS !!
go dagger !
YouTube should absolutely be held responsible for content it allows on it’s website. The Baltimore teacher should be entitled to damages resulting from it’s display (even though she has received a fair amount of counter-coverage in the traditional media).
Where does it stop? There’s 1,800+ results if you query “pick lock” on their search feature. Show me a practical application for that.
Why would somebody need instructions on how to make a “bomb?” Rat infestation?
I am very keen on old Amendment number one. But this “stuff” is pure number two…
Can you find books on lock-picking or bomb-making at a public library? That’s an honest question. I know there used to be a stir about libraries carrying The Anarchist’s Cookbook in their collection, but where do you draw the line?
Youtube is quick to take down copyrighted material, but not quick to take stuff like this down, even though they have done so by request in the past. I wonder if they are trying to prove a point?
Lets not forget that the teacher also has the right to put up as responses …directly connected…to those videos…the news clips and other video and audio of their sentances…trials…perp walks…ect….mabey the act and its RAMIFICATIONS both need airing…
I would allow and require the victom to be allowed to edit or have edited such things as personal info and her face from the video…criminals on the other hand…..no such priviledge…thats public info !
Lets be clear…the reason i dont obgect to this stuff being public, (and lets remember they are the ones who put it there), is so the public can see first hand what little bastards they are.
Richie, the problem comes in because the videos are uploaded unedited to the video sharing service, and no one is going to edit out the victim’s face from the video. I assume that the broadcast news would take these steps before showing it on TV.
Now, I don’t think youtube can be sued for having it up there, as Kendra documented. But they need to do the right thing before much worse videos start to get uploaded.
Once you tube is notified….they should do it to the video them selvs at the victoms request…and as the videos that are shared are shared by link they change also…and damages from the poster should also be available…but…leave them up!
Let these schmucks sink themselvs.
Richie, that is not youtube’s business model. It’s all about user generated content. If they are to stick to their business model, they would just take the video down. It is understood that youtube will never edit one’s video.
Now, you may have an idea for another type of site. Write up a business plan and send it the VCs in silicon valley/alley quick before the next bubble bursts!
I dont care what there buisness model is! Let it change. Remember…that censorship goes both ways…
(laugh) oh no…not another bubble…I cant take another bubble bath !!!
Youtube also poses a big problem for parents…and this is a much larger issue actually (maybe I should write about it and send it in :-)…but it is extremely hard to regulate where your child is going on the internet.
As a mother of a 14-year-old, I’m trying to stay ahead of that technological learning curve–but let’s face it–they know all the workarounds. No sooner do I put a block on a certain account and websites, then a new email is created in some free domain I’ve never heard of…
Currently there is no effective way for filtering inappropriate online material from younger viewers. The old “check yes if you are over 18” just doesn’t cut it, and is obviously just a CYA attempt for that site.
I don’t want anyone’s right to free speech taken away, of course. But as a parent, I need to be able to excercise the right to keep my kid from watching garbage that she doesn’t need to see. I acknowledge that I don’t know what the solution is.
One of the best ways to controll internet use by kids is to have the computer located in the family or living room…where there is frequent traffic by you. Also checking usage of internet priodicly by a parent is a good thing.
Mabey one of our Dagger guys can go over how to do that (how to check internet usage) in a simple way as a service to parents.
Trust me, I have blocks everywhere…I’m relatively computer savvy. And the computer is in MY bedroom, so there is never any doubt. But I have to tell you, technology is changing everyday, and the second you think your kid is under your thumb is the second they are getting into trouble.
Other parents aren’t always on the same page. Grandparents may not know what is going on. Youtube and myspace can be accessed from the library during “study time.” Know what I mean.
Point is: there needs to be some kind of safeguard (whatever that is) to keep kids from certain material. I mean, my friends have sent me Youtube links that I wouldn’t play for her!!!
concerned mama,
While my kids are still young enough that it’s not too much of an issue, I think that youtube is a lot less of a problem than myspace. Our old next-door neighbors sent me a friend request through my myspace account. THEY WERE 9 YEAR OLD GIRLS!!!! They put in 15 as their age so they could register. Of course, I denied the request. Wouldn’t look too good as you could tell how young they were by the pictures.
Also, they had tons of inappropriate content in their profiles, much of which is probably due to their english skills (not first language). We had to sit down with them and tell them what they could keep up and what they should take down.
Oh, for sure. Facebook too. I nixed myspace completely (blocked the url from the computer) and after being begged about facebook (it’s completely innocent mom, i swear) I set her profile and made her give me the password so that I could monitor it. Took all the fun out of it for her–imagine that!
I agree with you completely about myspace–I guess I just worry about the lack of control we have on the internet in general. There is some stuff on youtube that is completely inappropriate. And the kids have a knack for finding them. Even when they get pulled down, they pass the link around for the 15 minutes its there.
Brian, there are books and manuals out there on how to do just about anything. Pick up SOF magazine, and you can get books on homemade firearms, bombs, toppling third world governments for profit, whatever.
The trouble with posting these “how-to” videos comes when the liability starts.
Who answers for it when something goes awry?
Back to the original subject, why glorify and glamorize wanton acts of criminality by giving these people there free 15 minutes of fame? The only video of people like this that I want to see is the “perp walk” as they are being led off to prison.
I see what you mean Dell, but someone could ask the same reason for carrying homemade firearm books in the Darlington Branch of the Harford County Public Library.
If someone builds a bomb and hurts themselves or someone else and a copy of a library book is found at the scene, who is liable then? You might have some protestors picketing outside the library.
Agreed.
I suppose this is one instance where I don’t have an easy answer (damn!).
Is it censorship to remove these types of things from the public sphere?
I don’t think so. There are some segments of our society that need to be protected from itself. I am sure that there is a calling for zip guns somewhere, but my gut tells me that them that have the knowledge have inherited it from a source other that the public library, and aren’t likely to share it thusly.
Remember the flap over the schematics from Airforce 1 winding up on the web? They were pulled down pretty quickly. There are just some things that everybody doesn’t need to know, you know?
As intelligent as Dell’s arguement is, I must respectfully disagree.
Once a single instance of censorship is permitted (beyond instances of criminal activity) then every entry on Youtube will be susceptible.
I recall when the original filter software was introduced and libraries were installing it on their computers. Although it filtered the pr0n briefly, it also prevented adults from accessing WebMD if they happened to need information on their unmentionables.
The result will be banal material of no interest to any but the most pious and puritan among us(. Fundamentalist Deacons/pastors excluded of course)
There are legions of useless oxygen exchangers who have nothing to offer but pretentious criticism and live for the opportunity to claim offense at every opportunity, (google Superbowl Halftime/Janet Jackson or DanishMuhammad Catoons).
I believe those prone to devious intent will find a way aquire the knowledge they need, it may be more difficult, but it is far from impossible. One upside, it may get them to the library after a long hiatus to enjoy that most beneficial of government entitlements.
The shackles imposed on free-thought and exchange by censorship far outwiegh any real or perceived increase in communal safety. As unsavory as it may be, the dingos will always be among us. Only the vigilance of the populace can save our young.
Good Lord!.. this post sounds practically haughty!
bloonNot- Your assertion that those “prone to devious intent will find a way aquire the knowledge they need, it may be more difficult, but it is far from impossible” is correct. My point is that to make this type of stuff SO easy to obtain, and SO predominant, is reckless and negligent-at best.
Google AlQaida Handbook. The blueprint for jihad is there for all to see. Does that mean everybody is going to strap on two pounds of C4 and run down to the train station? Of course not.
But let two dunderheads post a three minute clip of their buds setting fire to the drive thru menu at the Burger King, and see what occurs.
Those that would be swayed by such a display will doubtless feel empowered to engage in a “one-upsmanship” “watch me” type exercise.
It’s not censorship, but restraint…
Touche’ and point taken. If I might hazard to define your point more thoroughly:
The trouble with Youtube is not that it encourages delinquency, because most juvenile/adolescent behaviour is the result of “one-upsmanship” and the nefarious feedback loop of peer pressure, but that it amplifies the bravado of the common punk.
While the townie youth were once restrained by their limited appeal & range, the modern web provides such vast fertile audience with which to sow their noxious seeds that it may end in the spiraling dimiss of civilization as we know it. Perhaps I exagerate a bit, but you understand the intent.
Your example does contradict my initial remark, I explicitly provided that lawlessness should not be afforded any protection from censorship.
It is ironic though that the act of posting these ‘virals’ provide the constables with their best evidence.
balloon knott
…nice name…its a catch 22….and somthing you and I understand all to well..
bababouey ! bababouey !
Dell with all do respect, we have and ample supply of highly’ trained & skilled personnel who are or were trained by our military. in weapon’s,explosive’s etc.
except for a rare incident. terry nichol’s & timothy mc veigh. being the exception mc veigh being military trained. his formula was a common practice used by farmer’s to blow tree stump’s, out of there field’s.
the formula was also printed in in a very well known magazine of the early 60’s napalm can be formulated as well at home, along with other home made explosives.
the point being. I’am a FIRM believer in freedom of press! but there is no reason for this type of info being made availble to the general public.
zip gun’s were being produced at home’ in simple basement work shop’s normally 22 caliber was common. pipe bomb’s etc. a few hour’s of scrounging you could be well armed.
by just useing what is laying around. a line need’s to be drawn. as to this type of info.
sem -per fi. in the hope that sanity will one day return to the united states.