Should YouTube Be Banned?

Originally posted by N. Tesla
taping a crime without interfering is a crime in it self.

Your argument is weaker by the moment. There are many many youtube videos taken by individuals that were not in a position to stop the crime, and apparently the authorities did not prosecute them (because they did not commit a crime).

reply to post by N. Tesla

i have a question for jakkyl. if you have no problem with the violence on youtube does that also mean that if someone was beating the # out of an animal for fun and you saw it happening you wouldn't stop them?

I think this is for Sonya,not me


I've still starred you though as i agree with your last statement.






[edit on 17-9-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by Sonya610

Are you being dramatic? Or did you actually find out that a "loved one" was beaten when you happened across a youtube video?

Luckily i have never come across such a thing,but there are plenty of people who have,and not just on youtube.


You're indifference to such violence speaks volumes.

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by N. Tesla

 

i have a question for jakkyl. if you have no problem with the violence on youtube does that also mean that if someone was beating the # out of an animal for fun and you saw it happening you wouldn't stop them?

I think this is for Sonya,not me

Was it for me? I am a big time animal lover. If I saw an animal being beaten for fun I would most likely end up at the police station trying to come up with a believable story to explain why I used deadly force because "my life was threatened". I am not kidding, animal abuse is very very serious. However I have not read anything here that makes me think youtube is contributing to animal abuse.

reply to post by Sonya610

However I have not read anything here that makes me think youtube is contributing to animal abuse.

Really?

The fact that the video linked in the OP has been viewed 54,955 and is still on line tells you all you need to know.

Your argument is weaker by the moment. There are many many youtube videos taken by individuals that were not in a position to stop the crime, and apparently the authorities did not prosecute them (because they did not commit a crime).

You can be guilty of filming a crime if you are seen as being an active participant.Egging someone on,giving encouragement etc falls into this catargory.Being a helpless witness is something totally different.








[edit on 17-9-2008 by jakyll]

I remember quite a few years ago, seeing breaking news come on about a high speed chase. The guy stopped, got out of his car with a shotgun in his hand, and proceeded to blow his entire head off on national television.

So how is that any different than YouTube?

And for the record, I watched Saddam Hussein hang a whole bunch of times.

Originally posted by jakyll
Really?
The fact that the video linked in the OP has been viewed 54,955 and is still on line tells you all you need to know.

I read the ATS thread, I did not watch the video. I believe the authorities are desperately trying to find the offender BECAUSE of the video.

Or do you really think that a normal person would not do such a thing on their own, but when they realized they could put it on youtube it seemed like a great idea? Is that what you believe? They thought "hey normally I would not enjoy beating an animal, but I can put it on youtube so lets do it!"

reply to post by jackinthebox

So how is that any different than YouTube?

If its live then there is little they can do about it.

If its filmed and then repeated on the news then there is no difference between the news network and youtube.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I recall that and that is totally different, the footage was at the time live and was greatly regretted, nobody needed to see that but in the pursuit of ratings the time delay function has been lost, youtube has the ability to screen all vids before posting, and if violence is seen once it will be seen again

reply to post by jakyll


I have seen plenty of newscasts come on with a disclaimer before showing something like that.

"We must warn you, that what we are about to show you is extremely graphic..." or somesuch.

So you are pro-censorship across the board then?

reply to post by Sonya610

I read the ATS thread, I did not watch the video. I believe the authorities are desperately trying to find the offender BECAUSE of the video.

Obviously.
That doesn't explain why it is still up on youtube.The site it originated on has removed it already.ORSM.net was the place and its a porn site guide!
Says a lot if the owners of that have the decency to remove it and youtube don't.


And i believe i said some people use the lure of the internet as a reason to make violent vidoes,not all.





[edit on 17-9-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by pazcat

...and if violence is seen once it will be seen again

So?

Is that the fault of YouTube? Would we see a dramatic decrease in senseless violence without YouTube? I doubt it.

And for the record, I did watch the kangaroo video, twice in fact. Just about as idiotic as the one not too long ago, that was on one of those amazing video shows, where the roo screwed up a person pretty bad.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jakyll

 

I have seen plenty of newscasts come on with a disclaimer before showing something like that.

"We must warn you, that what we are about to show you is extremely graphic..." or somesuch.

It may depend on where you live but those disclaimers are never for death footage, they will show before and after but never the act, there are media guidlines that are fairly well followed maybe youtube should be included in them.
Its not a question of censorship just common sense

reply to post by jackinthebox


Which they have to say so they don't get sued.

So you are pro-censorship across the board then?

Not at all.

Originally posted by jakyllObviously.
That doesn't explain why it is still up on youtube.The site it originated on has removed it already.ORSM.net was the place and its a porn site guide!
Says a lot of the owners of that have the decency to remove it and youtube don't.

What is your point? That hidious crimes should NOT be allowed on youtube? Okay then they should take down the kangaroo video, and all the 9/11 videos too while they are at it.

It might upset people, even though both are considered heinous crimes.

Look, seriously, I understand why you are upset about animal violence (I did not watch the video for a reason, because animal violence makes me ill, unlike human on human violence, I have no problem watching the worst of that).

If that is your point, I do understand. But if it is not being glorified I think it SHOULD be shown. It horrifies people. It makes them aware.

reply to post by jakyll

And i believe i said some people use the lure of the internet as a reason to make violent vidoes,not all.

Are those "some people" your whole reason why my access to information should be arbitrarily filtered by a private company? And where then do you draw the line? Just violence? Sex? Subversive politics?

reply to post by pazcat

Its not a question of censorship just common sense

It most certainly is a question of censorhip. It is someone else deciding what I should and should not be allowed to see. Who are you to judge what I should be allowed to see, or anyone else?

Now I don't really think it's necessary to show someone being killed on the five oclock news, but that's why I am all for YouTube. I can go there to watch Saddam dangle.

I think it is criminal graphic acts where the line should be drawn, plain and simple, 911 was not graphic as it was the outside you could bot see the pain and suffering or hear the cries, the aftermath was and is always reported on, but most stupid youtube posts are not news.

The whole watching saddam dangle bit isnt drawing a good light on your state of mind, hell your right watch what you want why not just dont bitch when its you or your family getting dragged down the streets all charred and burnt

anyhoo bed time


[edit on 17-9-2008 by pazcat]

reply to post by jackinthebox

Are those "some people" your whole reason why my access to information should be arbitrarily filtered by a private company? And where then do you draw the line? Just violence? Sex? Subversive politics?

I personally draw the line at animal abuse and violent attacks on people.
If a facial image can be taken from the clip then this can be reproduced to help locate the criminal(s).There is no reason to keep showing the video.


And,as you're taking this topic down the inevitable route,do you think its ok for pedophilia and beastiality sites to exist on line?
Such sites are available to anyone who uses the internet,including children.Sex,i have no problem with,but sites like the ones mentioned above and sites that cater to the more violent and abusive kind of porn should be banned.

The only information gleaned from such clips as the kangaroo video is this;some humans are sick and twisted.
And,as the vast majority of us already know this,we don't need such informative videos on line.






[edit on 17-9-2008 by jakyll]

Originally posted by pazcat
I think it is criminal graphic acts where the line should be drawn, plain and simple

Criminal graphic acts? That is nice and tidy. So you do not want to see graphic huh? Can't handle it? Like the media can't handle seeing what goes on in Iraq because it is "too graphic?" Let's censor it from the voters? Lets keep death nice and clean and pc?