There has been rising criticism of YouTube censoring content on its site and today is another example. People posted the video of a mob taunting a man nearly beaten to death at a Fourth of July event. The video has triggered a debate over hate crime investigations as well as the simple lack of humanity found in today’s society. In other words, there is a substantive debate surrounding the videotape. However, YouTube says that it has been taken down for disgusting content. It rekindles the objection that YouTube has become a private censor — rather than a forum that warns of such content but allows people to make their own choices. [UPDATE: The video appears to be going up and coming down on YouTube but appears to be currently available here with a warning. I have not problem as I stated below with the addition of such a warning and wall]
There is no question that there is a lot of disturbing videotapes out there. Another example is ISIS. The Islamic extremists clearly use their horrendous acts to recruit. However, these videotapes also show the vast majority of people — including the vast majority of Muslims — the depth of depravity of this group and the reality of religious extremism in the world. Shielding people from such images (rather than allowing them to decide) is a controversial role.
Critics have said that the most important images on YouTube are often disturbing but that they are the very images that trigger meaningful public debate. Otherwise, YouTube seems catered to videos of cats playing piano. The removal of this videotape is problematic in my view. Yes, there is blood and a terribly injured man. However, most people linking to this video (as on this blog) are engaged in a discussion about our values and more concretely the evidence needed to start a hate crime investigation. Why not but up a wall and allow people to decide for themselves? What do you think should be the standard?
Reblogged this on Scoop Feed.
Nick Spinelli:
Troll
/trōl/
noun
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a
newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and
argument.
Paul, Isaac is conservative when it comes to crime. He taught in the inner city and saw the depravity. Otherwise, he is part of the nanny, banning, restrictive, mindset of liberals. He thinks it’s conservatives who are the banning “restrictive” people because that’s what he was taught.
I am always interested in the cross rips in our PC culture. There are crimes committed by illegal aliens daily, in many jurisdictions across this nation, on a daily basis. But, they never make the MSM. But, you have a pretty, upscale, white WOMAN killed by a multiple felon and it does get attention. Now we learn this killer chose SF specifically because it is a sanctuary city. Here’s my hope. And, I have strong hope because I know hardworking, law abiding, legal and illegal Mexicans. I hope they rise up and demand these despicable sanctuary cities be eliminated by ICE. We know those elusive moderate Muslims have not stepped up to the plate. But, I could see good Mexicans coming forward. I have conversations and I know they are outraged and embarrassed by criminals in their culture. The vast majority of Mexicans in this country are good people. And, they have many conservative values. W got 40% of their vote. Republicans, if they’re savvy, could get close to 50% this next election. They are not very fond of Hillary.
Paul
You are almost as lame as some of the others. I am liberal and I think the video should stay. That is a liberal thing, expression, freedom. The restrictive society, that is a Republican thing.
Regarding the video, the faces and antics of those frolicking thugs should be cleaned up and enhanced and then posted virally to expose the sort of low lives that take pleasure in some one else getting beat up. There was one white guy there by the way.
If you are going to be a thug then the public should be notified.
issac – a couple of things 1) Google is liberal as hell and they own YouTube 2) thug requires I use some physical force on you 3) you can still be liberal and not agree with the actions of Google.
The government should not be involved in defining YouTube’s censoring practices. However, it would be in the best interest of YouTube’s brand not to be censoring videos like this one.
It does not fit their liberal business model. Blacks are victims not victimizers. Obama’s son could be one of the kids they caught on film.
I agree with Professor Turley that YouTube should merely post a warning about graphic images, rather than censor, unless, as Jane mentioned, the video instructs on something like how to build a bomb.
Otherwise, even disturbing videos such as these can touch off public discourse as well as be of use to criminal investigators.
As per usual, I can’t watch videos on my satellite internet, so I don’t know what happened to the poor man other than he got beat up on July 4th and people either mocked him, or took video instead of rendering aid.
What a sad commentary on how our values have fallen.
I hope those in the video aren’t registered voters.
I know why they took it down and as usual its to protect the guilty!
Titillation, enjoyment, incitement… at least 3 reasons to take it down.
The beat up guy needs to go back to the scene and look for his missing watch. He needs to dress in a bear outfit. He needs to take a rifle with him and then shoot anyone he sees who laughed or taunted him when he was beaten up.
He can play the video at his trial if he is charged with shooting anyone. The right to arm bears should be his defense.
They sure didn’t take down the “disturbing” video of cops shooting fleeing black suspects, and girls in bikinis being roughed up. The liberal media, and YouTube is part of that, have a narrative they are pushing. And, this video hurts that narrative. We are in a very disturbing time vis a vis truth. If we all believe, “The truth shall make you free.” Then, what is the opposite of that??
This is only a problem if youtube is a monopoly. But, it’s not. There are other video sharing services. I’m sure liveleak will host it. If youtube thinks it doesn’t fit their business model, then I won’t criticize them for that decision since I can always go somewhere else to watch the video if that’s what I want to do.
Thank you, Peter.
You can find it on LiveLeak. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ac_1436192792
Oops, big typo there. Bombs! not bongs.
Bongs are okay.;-)
Youtube should stay out of the censoring business.
Except on instructional videos on how to do a crime, or make a bong, etc.
The video has another purpose and that since no one aided in helping the injured man then the not so innocent bystanders can be charged with offenses, especially those that are asked questions by the law and then claim they were not there.
What I was wondering what about the video of how he got beaten up and who did it?
Who started the beaten and why? Investigation is warranted?
Someone said it was a Muslim thing, but it looked more like a black on white thing.
Maybe, with the video allowed to stay up. Youtube can help solve the offenses, by identifing the sources of the videos.
Maybe the authorities should ask Youtube who uploaded the videos and how many different videos?
Use Youtube as a tool to fight for Law and Order.
There is the video and the point of the video. The point of the video is righteous even though it might be seen as performance. The profile of this sort of behavior must be raised and exposed in order for it to be addressed. Otherwise it just becomes more of the human circus that is expected to be massaged into the daily routine.
Perhaps the parents of the thugs that were laughing and contributing in their own cowardly ways might step in if their kids went viral. Regardless of all the legal and Constitutional nuance, if it isn’t known, it won’t be addressed.