Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Bans Gun and Knife Videos In the UK

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the long-chain-of-abuses-and-usurpations dept.

Censorship 632

PatPending writes with a depressing excerpt from the UK's Metro: "The Google-owned video-sharing site YouTube has decided to introduce the ban [on weapons-related videos] for the UK only amid widespread unease about the increase in knife crime in the country. 'We recognise that there has been particular concern over videos in the UK that involve showing weapons with the aim of intimidation, and this is one of the areas we are addressing,' a YouTube spokesperson said. 'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,' she said."

cancel ×

632 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090607)

pissing frost

Re:first post (4, Informative)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090739)

I must admit, these trollish little first posts do make good place holders.

TFA should probably be http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7621013.stm [bbc.co.uk] . Interestingly enough, it makes use of the increasingly ubiquitous "vet" [word-detective.com] .

Re:first post (1, Funny)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090841)

That's already become everyone's new favorite election year buzzword here in the US, so why wouldn't the BBC pick up on it, too? I need to hire one or two more sub-entry level underlings next week, so I need to vet some candidates, too. It's this year's "flip-flop."

I'm Uvajed Ekil, and I feel compelled for no good reason to point out that I approved this message, even though it consisted solely of me stating what I think.

Re:first post (4, Insightful)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090985)

If you actually read the blog post you linked, you would find that 'vet' "has been used in Britain since the early years of the 20th century". Actually we use it more widely than the screening of a candidate for public office: I consider it a straight synonym for 'screen' in the sense of investigation and filtering. The BBC usage of vetting videos is one example; another would be the vetting of people who work in a security-conscious environment.

'cause everyone knows (5, Insightful)

ichbineinneuben (1065378) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090613)

Guns and knives don't kill people. Videos kill people.

Re:'cause everyone knows (4, Funny)

flayzernax (1060680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090631)

Vidoes dont kill people, Youtube kills people

Re:'cause everyone knows (3, Funny)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090647)

Youtube doesn't kill people. Google kills you, except in Soviet Russia.

Re:'cause everyone knows (1)

sveard (1076275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090921)

is this one of those pre-emptive reversals i've been hearing so much about lately?

Re:'cause everyone knows (5, Informative)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090649)


Knives are this month's hysteria in the UK. That's not to say there isn't a problem with knife use in the UK. And it isn't to say that videos on YouTube can't be used for intimidation of specific people and so should be removed in such cases. But one day, the media suddenly went into a feeding frenzy, police chiefs were trotting out their most ridiculous arrays or seized weapons (including a photo of a Star Trek replica weapon at one point) and Home Secretaries were trying to look all grave and serious talking about the knife epidemic sweeping our nation.

It may be a serious issue. But it's definitely something that Labour are trying to use for political gain and as a fear stick.

Re:'cause everyone knows (-1, Flamebait)

callmetheraven (711291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090755)

How did the English, who once ruled a vast empire, become such sissified little bitches? Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.

BTW, if you like the way that England is going with this, vote Obama, he's got the same thing in mind for America.

Re:'cause everyone knows (4, Informative)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090859)

Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.

That actually never happened. Violent crime has been dropping in Britain.

BTW, if you like the way that England is going with this, vote Obama, he's got the same thing in mind for America.

Riiiiiiiggght. Got any evidence to back that up?

Re:'cause everyone knows (5, Informative)

paganizer (566360) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090885)

Interesting reality you live in there.
results of a really quick google search:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html [reason.com] (england & gun control)
the Obama thing is a little hard to pin down, as he has been pretty good at avoiding any straight answers. But you could start here: http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm [ontheissues.org]
note: if you are pro-gun control, you obviously won't see anything wrong with this.

Re:'cause everyone knows (3, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090955)

OK, so where does your link show skyrocketing knife crimes correlating to a ban of knives? That's what the GP claimed.

Also, the Reason article you link to is from 2002, so is rather outdated. Violent crimes have dropped in the UK since then. And I'm not seeing the claimed correlation between UK gun laws and the incidence of violent crime. Again, linky: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm [bbc.co.uk]

From your link on Obama, he states "As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?

The funny thing is that your own links rebut the argument you were trying to make with them!

Re:'cause everyone knows (1, Insightful)

atriusofbricia (686672) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090889)

Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.

That actually never happened. Violent crime has been dropping in Britain.

BTW, if you like the way that England is going with this, vote Obama, he's got the same thing in mind for America.

Riiiiiiiggght. Got any evidence to back that up?

You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping? As to the Obama claim, look at his voting record on gun issues. All the proof you need is right there.

Re:'cause everyone knows (2, Informative)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090917)

Wait, what does his voting on gun issues have to do with knives again? And since when is voting on gun control the same as voting to outlaw guns?

As for crime rates, there's a nice chart and some analysis here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:'cause everyone knows (3, Insightful)

paganizer (566360) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090865)

I'm not surprised you got modded "flamebait"; how DARE you criticize Obama!
Besides, he is definitely NOT planning on the same thing as England, he just wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons; you could still have your double-barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles and single action revolvers as long as you live outside of an Urban area. I guess a person could be concerned that he hasn't defined what an Urban area is...but still, shut up! he Gives us hope!

Re:'cause everyone knows (5, Informative)

atriusofbricia (686672) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090949)

I'm not surprised you got modded "flamebait"; how DARE you criticize Obama! Besides, he is definitely NOT planning on the same thing as England, he just wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons; you could still have your double-barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles and single action revolvers as long as you live outside of an Urban area. I guess a person could be concerned that he hasn't defined what an Urban area is...but still, shut up! he Gives us hope!

But, you can only possess those as long as you can find a gun store which would still be in operation. Under a 1999 Obama proposal [volokh.com] , all gun stores within five miles of any school or park. Such a law, if actually proposed and passed, would kill off pretty much every gun store in the country which wasn't way in the boonies. Now, this admittedly wasn't proposed as a bill (as that would require him to have actually done something). This was proposed in a speech at an anti-rights rally. Yep, a real rights supporter he. ;)

Re:'cause everyone knows (-1, Troll)

callmetheraven (711291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090869)

-1 Flamebait? Fuck that! Somebody's a crybaby Obama-loving pussy! Hey, sorry the truth hurts, but it's still the truth! Maybe you should sissy off to Merry Olde England where you'd fit in a little better. Pansy.

Re:'cause everyone knows (0, Flamebait)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090873)

you know i just wasting feeling the flames enough so i thought id help you out.

How did the English, who once ruled a vast empire using slave bitches, become such sissified little bitches? Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes(I don't believe wikipeida when i look at the facts that show a reduction in gun crime immediately after the ban and continue to show much lower levels of gun crime & murder than the US, because wikipeida is full of shit eating faggots). Ban knives, knife crime escalates(Sure if you look it up in books, you'll see that theres no new law on knives at all and this escalation must have some other cause, but books are for pussies).

  BTW, if you like the way that England is going with this, vote Osama, he's got the same thing in mind for America, sure he hasn't told anybody yet, but thats because his just a lying nigger looking to steal your TV on his way to the mosque.

f1rst post

Re:'cause everyone knows (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090973)

I haven't heard Obama mention introducing any Constitutional Amendments. Or are you saying the Supreme Court that just verified the individual right to keep and bear arms and overturned a gun ban is going to allow Obama to ban guns? Your fears are irrational.

Re:'cause everyone knows (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090999)

How did the English, who once ruled a vast empire, become such sissified little bitches?

Simple: we were always sissified little bitches. But now we can't send the people who upset us to serve time in Australia or the army in the Raj.

Re:'cause everyone knows (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090809)

But one day, the media suddenly went into a feeding frenzy, police chiefs were trotting out their most ridiculous arrays or seized weapons (including a photo of a Star Trek replica weapon at one point) and Home Secretaries were trying to look all grave and serious talking about the knife epidemic sweeping our nation.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming Brick Epidemic, the following Cobblestone Conundrum, and finally the Pointy-stick Problem.

Before it is all over you English won't be allowed possession of anything harder than mushy peas. I've no idea how you'll manage to cook them or mash them for that matter because anything sufficiently rigid enough to cook them in or mash them with will have been made illegal to possess.

Turing word: disarm
(Sometimes I swear they're added a lexical analyzer.)

Re:'cause everyone knows (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090717)

Declawed gerbils rotting deep inside of assholes can't be helping people either.

Re:'cause everyone knows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090727)

flooking retarded. It's hard to get guns in the UK, that's why there is a rise in knifings.

But yes, banning videos will help I'm sure, just as banning guns would stop all violent crime.

Re:'cause everyone knows (0)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090805)

Don't you mean "forking retarded"? It fits the theme better. Anyway, I think the solution is more sporks.

Re:'cause everyone knows (1)

Vetrik (1311131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090979)

You trying to get sporks banned? I will hate you till the end of time!

Re:'cause everyone knows (1)

Vetrik (1311131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25091001)

Then spork your corpse! I forgot to add that.

Re:'cause everyone knows (-1, Flamebait)

callmetheraven (711291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090831)

First the UK banned guns. Violence increased (dramatically.)
Then they banned knives. Violence increased.
Then they banned swords. Violence increased (a little. Swords weren't a problem.)
Next they will ban cricket bats and baseball bats. Violence will increase.
Then they will ban axes, hatchets, screwdrivers, hammers, rocks, etc. Violence will increase.
After that they will ban pointed sticks (and pieces of fruit.) Violence will increase.
Eventually they will try to ban fists, thumbs, feet, knees and elbows.

Why does the violence increase as weapons bans are enacted? Only law abiding people are disarmed. The lawbreakers don't obey weapons-control laws. Disarmed citizens make the best targets, and soon all UK citizens will be disarmed, a criminal's paradise. Armed citizens decrease crime.

Obama is a gun control freak. Don't let him screw up America the way the English have screwed themselves. Cold dead hands. Molon labe!

Re:'cause everyone knows (1)

atriusofbricia (686672) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090961)

Aside from the part about banning knives (they haven't gotten around to doing that as yet), how is this flamebait? Because it doesn't tow the left leaning groupthink on /.?

Re:'cause everyone knows (0, Troll)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090735)

Guns and knives don't kill people. Videos kill people.

Guns and knives don't kill people. I do.

Re:'cause everyone knows (4, Funny)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090857)

With a name like "Foobar of Borg"? Please. At worst you assimilate people. More likely, though, you just run around at Star Trek conventions, pretending that you matter.

Re:'cause everyone knows (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090737)

Yeah I've never understood this obsession with banning weapons or even pictures of weapons on the left which I consider myself a part of BTW. If the state disarms FIRST maybe, until then fuggit about it. Standing a-prori naked and defenseless against governments that have murdered literally hundreds of millions of people in the last hundred years is just not very bright. And to make it a thought crime is even more appalling.

Orwell was just off by 20 years, that's all.

Re:'cause everyone knows (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090935)

No, Orwell was off by 600 miles.

can't get to TFA. (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090625)

The link in the summary goes to "http://slashdot.org/ahref=". Nice.

Re:can't get to TFA. (5, Funny)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090699)

The link in the summary goes to "http://slashdot.org/ahref=". Nice.

They thought it was unfair how the few people who actually read the articles have a huge advantage in discussing them, so they decided to level the playing field.

Re:can't get to TFA. (2, Funny)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090801)

That's the actual article, it's protecting society through ignorance.

Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outside (4, Insightful)

compumike (454538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090633)

You know, I'm a bit torn here.

I think it's really oppressive when governments do things like telling a company that they'd have to do something like this (which the government did *not* do)... But it's almost scarier that they're doing it on their own initiative as a company. It's like one of those many situations in which someone will self-regulate to a stronger degree than is necessary just to present the appearance that outside regulation is not necessary. I certainly believe that Google/YouTube has the right to do this, but not necessarily that they should. So is it better that this came from within rather than from external forces?

--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]

Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs (3, Informative)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090657)

it's to stop idiots posting stuff showing them knifing people/things and rob them of their 15 minutes of fame. i totally agree with it. the internet is NOT a ticket to do as you please.

Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090839)

Well, I don't like your tone.

Get off my internet.

Corporate responsibility (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090733)

Actually, if a company does this on its own because they are concerned about it, that's called "being responsible." If a government requires it via an official censorship policy, then I have a problem with it. Ideally it should work this way, with corporate entities being sensitive to the needs of of the communities they do business in, so governments don't feel the need to intervene and implement sweeping, draconian limitations on everyone. You can still film yourself practicing your nunchuck skills or slashing the air with a knife, and share the video with other morons, you just can't use Youtube to do it in the UK now, I guess. This is all fine, as we don't have any guaranteed right to post on Youtube, and this decision will make many people happy, until they realize that the internet is global and local laws do not apply to the creation or dissemination of content in other countries.

Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090791)

I am going to see if I can single-handedly cause an increase in crimes involving the use of hammers and soccer balls. Just because I want to see the headline when those items are banned from youtube.

(Just playing devil's advocate here)

UK is full of spineless pussies (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090635)

VIDEO of weapons scares them? Do they ban Schwarzenegger movies too?

Re:UK is full of spineless pussies (1)

alxkit (941262) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090777)

its not the video of weapons that scares them. its the fact that stupid people will get stupid ideas.

Re:UK is full of spineless pussies (4, Funny)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090799)

personally know several people who have been robbed using Arnold Schwarzenegger as a deadly weapon. They call the victim's "California Taxpayers" :)

(jk - I think he has been lowering taxes)

As can be logically concluded... (5, Insightful)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090637)

Nobody knows how to use a knife until they first search for it on youtube.

Re:As can be logically concluded... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090697)

If the people in charge were more savvy, they'd know that something like this can easily bring about the Streisand effect. Pretty soon everyone on the internet is going to know that knives exist!

Re:As can be logically concluded... (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090751)

well if they're like me and learned how to throw knives from youtube vids, then I guess so. But that brings up a point each way. Yeah, you can learn knife throwing and stuff but what if you just want to throw knives for fun? Now you can't find it on youtube. It's keeping info from people who want to use it for legal purposes and that's just wrong. But, if they're looking up how to throw knives cuz they want to rob a bank or start throwing them at random people cuz they're psycho then they should be blocked from it, shouldn't they? Overall I don't think youtube plays a part in knife mugging at all. I don't recall any "how to mug someone with a knife" videos on youtube.

Re:As can be logically concluded... (1)

seriesrover (867969) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090813)

You might not recall videos on YouTube re:how to mug someone with a knife, but then 99% don't use YouTube to look up that stuff. YouTube are doing 'their bit' to stop the idiots that do.

Re:As can be logically concluded... (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090817)

No no, What we need is to impose a 5 day waiting period on thinking about viewing a Youtube video (and the adverts) before learning on Youtube. After all, why ban weapons when you can ban knowledge?

more logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090861)

Because, as we all know, it's more important to HIDE the problem than to SOLVE the problem.

(And here's a hint, UK, the problem doesn't lie within the inanimate object. The problem is within the people who use the weapons.)

Re:As can be logically concluded... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090875)

Nobody knows how to use a knife until they first search for it on youtube.

Thank goodness that there are self defense guides for just that sort of situation [youtube.com] on YouTube as well.

'knife crime?' (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090653)

pure idiocy.

no one seems to realize that there is no such thing as "gun" or "knife" crime. there is crime, and the most convenient tool to carry it out with for threatening people and causing harm. where guns are available this is the tool, where guns are not it's knives or bludgeoning implements.

'knife crime' is going up because that's what is available.

i've gotten a hell of a lot of decent information about my firearm from youtube (if you keep it to videos featuring nationally recognized figures you can't get steered too wrong, like todd jarett).

this is just a plain stupid move on youtube's part.

And: (0, Troll)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090661)

'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,' she said."

She followed up, "But all that gun, knife, and fighting shit is still fine in America, cause they're fine with that ol' gun and violence problem they already got."

What wisdom.

Re:And: (0)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090823)

These things are censored in movies in UK, right? I mean, some of what gets put on YouTube are skits and plays and short "film" that wanna-be movie producers and actors create (as opposed to real life events).

And what if someone got a video of a Policeman using a gun to intimidate someone? Oh wait, it's the UK way to leave their Policemen defenseless.

Cooking knives (4, Interesting)

Lucky75 (1265142) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090663)

What about videos describing how to cut food properly? Are they going to ban all the videos that teach you how to cook too? Maybe TV shows or movies/trailers with violence in them? Yep, it's those darn youtube videos that are really causing all the violence.

Hmm (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090665)

"I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world"

I don't think that "Internet service provider" means what she thinks it means.

Re:Hmm (2, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090887)

They do provide a service on the internet.

playing devils advocate here (1)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090667)

Maybe youtube needs to have some sort of moderator system, like slashdot, so that deleted content can be viewed by them and reinstated if necessary.
We then can have a balances between peoples right to security (which out weighs your right to free speech) and free speech. Thwarting any reasonable sounding excuse politically motivated entities have for curtailing free speech.

Re:playing devils advocate here (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090689)

In Soviet Russia, Youtube moderate Slashdot!

Umm... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090669)

Did it ever occur to them that the increase in kife crimes might be a result of their outlawing guns?

Nevermind, they must be right. It must be the internet's fault.

You're wrong. (2, Insightful)

janrinok (846318) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090939)

I'm afraid that you are talking crap.

There has been a significant increase in knife crime in the UK over the last decade. Guns however, have never been legal for common ownership in the UK (at least in recent history) and so it is entirely wrong to try to connect the recent increase in knife crime with the fact that guns have never been permitted. There is no connection between the two. You might have been correct had you said that many youths are using knives because of the difficulties they face when trying to obtain guns, but you didn't. Violent crime, particularly armed violent crime, is on the increase and those that commit it will use whatever weapon they can find. That doesn't justify making guns more readily available. Incidentaly, firearms are also being used increasingly in the UK by criminals but at a much lower level than, say, in the USA where such weapons are more readily available.

And finally, for those outside the UK who don't keep abreast of developments but who like to make statements based upon their imperfect knowledge of other countries, you need to be aware that there are armed police in the UK. Some people actually think that there are too many of them. But the UK does not find it necessary to arm all of the policemen all of the time

Typical Google/Youtube ethics (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090671)

Videos of weapons are banned but pedophilia and children exploitation is OK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqIPFTF7JeY [youtube.com]

Broken link in OP. (0, Redundant)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090679)

Anybody have a legit link?

moD 0p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090681)

Really increased? (5, Informative)

duck0 (1073338) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090695)

I remember hearing about this on BBC's radio4...

A quick search later found this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7421534.stm [bbc.co.uk]

According to the British Crime Survey (BCS), overall violent crime has decreased by 41% since a peak in 1995.
Knives are used in about 8% of violent incidents, according to the BCS, a level that has largely remained the same during the past decade.

However:

But the BCS figures do not include under-16s, something which the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced this month would change.

Re:Really increased? (1)

atriusofbricia (686672) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090991)

I remember hearing about this on BBC's radio4...

A quick search later found this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7421534.stm [bbc.co.uk]

According to the British Crime Survey (BCS), overall violent crime has decreased by 41% since a peak in 1995. Knives are used in about 8% of violent incidents, according to the BCS, a level that has largely remained the same during the past decade.

However:

But the BCS figures do not include under-16s, something which the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced this month would change.

Didn't they also get caught out fudging the books on crime awhile back, or was that Chicago? Either way, it of course doesn't take into account unreported crime. Given the reports from people on the ground over there, I'd have to think that a 41% decrease is bull. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Do not be alarmed, all is well... (2, Insightful)

Grym (725290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090705)

Isn't it obvious what the real problem is? These videos implicitly question the effectiveness of the UK police state and are, thus, are doubleplusbad. After all, it makes no sense to have the telescreen speaking ill of big brother now does it?

I implore those who question the usefulness of the second amendment here in the U.S. to take a hard look at what's happening in the U.K. today. The slippery slope is very real.

-Grym

Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... (1)

boxxertrumps (1124859) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090829)

Doubleplusungood, you mean.

Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090837)

Uhh, what would this have to do with the British government or laws, or the second amendment? Google decided to do this of their own free will. They could easily decide to ban gun videos in the USA, and the Second Amendment wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it.

It's within Google's First Amendment rights to show whatever they see fit, and not show what they don't see fit.

Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... (0, Troll)

Grym (725290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090911)

Uhh, what would this have to do with the British government or laws, or the second amendment?

It has everything to do with it. How many knifing epidemics have you ever heard of in the United States?

Google decided to do this of their own free will.

Google very clearly did this in response to a request by U.K. officials. True, though they probably legally could have said no, but they chose to comply. Makes you wonder about the "Do No Evil" mantra, eh? If you consider political censorship of this nature to be something evil (or, at least, immoral), like I do, then Google's policy is probably better stated as: "Do No Evil, unless China, the U.K., or some other government asks us."

-Grym

Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090989)

It has everything to do with it. How many knifing epidemics have you ever heard of in the United States?

I doubt it would be reported, as America has a violence-loving culture, and we generally don't care much. We do care if titties are shown on TV, though. Or if people are enjoying sex too much.

As for the "knifing epidemic" in the UK, it doesn't exist. It's a fabrication of the media.

Google very clearly did this in response to a request by U.K. officials.

How is that "very clear"? the article doesn't mention any request from officials whatsoever.

Makes you wonder about the "Do No Evil" mantra, eh?

Nope. I've always considered that slogan to be empty marketing bullshit. That said, many people would consider the broadcasting of violent videos to be evil. So it depends on your definition of evil.

But back to the point - how does the Second Amendment stop Google from doing something similar in the USA?

Does anybody really think (1, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090711)

... that censoring YouTube will have a significant effect on crime?

Study after study have shown no verifiable link between violence in the media and violence in real life. In fact, there is some evidence that there is a negative correlation, though small.

So what's the point? "Let's do anything, even if it's wrong!" ??

Re:Does anybody really think (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090853)

Study after study have shown no verifiable link between violence in the media and violence in real life.

Can you name said study after study? Because the ones I can name start with Bandura, A, D Ross & S A Ross (1961): 'Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models', Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 63: 575-82 and work their way forwards and they say exactly the opposite. Perhaps you're confusing "person after person said that study after study have shown" with "study after study have shown" because they often do say so. They're wrong.

Go elsewhere (1)

eggman9713 (714915) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090723)

If you can't find your knife fix on youtube, there are plenty other clones of it out there to find it. Not to mention that these clone sites are often run by people who don't really give a flying **** about internet users outside their country of jurisdiction. This is all just a big PR stunt. Whether it will have a positive or negative effect will be up to the users (and not the shareholders, they are happy with whatever Gootube does as long as it makes them money.)

Sympathetic magic. (1)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090743)

What's the word for failing to draw a distinction between a representation of something and the thing being representing?

'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,

Because whatever that word is, this is it:

If I make this doll that looks like you, and use a piece of your hair, I can jab it with pins and you'll be injured. If we remove pictures of knifes from the internet, knife crime will fall. If we allow depictions of knives on the internet, knife crime will rise.

Perfectly insane.

Why bother with knives? (1)

andyring (100627) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090747)

I'll happily stick to America, where I can legally defend myself with the pistol in my pocket.

Re:Why bother with knives? (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090793)

I'll happily stick to America, where I can legally defend myself with the pistol in my pocket.

And unfortunately, you might need to, since every criminal on every American street knows where to get a gun on the black market, with no background check or paper trail. If we didn't have so many handguns, we might not need so many handguns. (Hunting weapons and military rifles are a different story, and I won't go there - handguns are the real danger.)

Re:Why bother with knives? (1)

paganizer (566360) | more than 5 years ago | (#25091003)

Ahem.
Immediately after reading your post I walked up to the road by my house, then urinated in public (nobody around, of course).
This made me a Criminal on an American Street, and I have to tell you, I have no idea where I would go right at this moment to get an illegal handgun.
And, taking my tongue slightly out of my cheek, you are pretty much wrong; a certain class of criminal may well always know where to go to get an illegal handgun, but the majority of criminals who reside outside of the very largest metro areas aren't going to know where to go to get a illegal pistol.

Re:Why bother with knives? (3, Interesting)

atriusofbricia (686672) | more than 5 years ago | (#25091015)

I'll happily stick to America, where I can legally defend myself with the pistol in my pocket.

And unfortunately, you might need to, since every criminal on every American street knows where to get a gun on the black market, with no background check or paper trail. If we didn't have so many handguns, we might not need so many handguns. (Hunting weapons and military rifles are a different story, and I won't go there - handguns are the real danger.)

Because bans on things like drugs and, in the past, alcohol worked so well, didn't it? Those mentioned criminals are breaking several laws acquiring those guns. All the paper trail and background check requirements did exactly what to stop that? It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that you seem to be advocating more of the same ineffective regulations and laws. Thus, the law abiding will be disarmed, or hampered, and the criminal element will simply laugh and carry on business as usual. See Chicago, NYC, and Washington, D.C. as examples. If you want international examples, see Russia with an almost total ban on handguns. Yet, they have sky high rates of crime and in particular murder.

Re:Why bother with knives? (1)

TFer_Atvar (857303) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090803)

Aside from the obvious double entendre, you really shouldn't carry a pistol in a pocket not designed for it. Holsters are designed to avoid the risk of an accidental firing, and pockets are not. In addition, it's slower to extract a pistol from a pocket than a holster in an emergency, and when you're faced with an emergency that requires you to draw a gun, milliseconds count.

Re:Why bother with knives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090879)

How disappointing - I thought you were just happy to see me.

Re:Why bother with knives? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090905)

And I'll happily stick to England where i don't have to.

Each to their own i suppose.

So... (1)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090753)

So I guess all of the awesome surveillance the UK is imposing upon its citizens [bbc.co.uk] is doing much for crime...why not take them all out and put the money into a national Internet firewall? Maybe THEN humans will have only happy thoughts.

Hmm (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090761)

Does that mean I can't post re-enactment videos then? Even though all the firearms I use for that are licensed and legally held...

Awesome idea! (5, Informative)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090767)

This will work great, until every kid in the UK finds that he can replace the "uk" in "uk.youtube.com" with "www" and see awesome, inspirational stuff like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEoiu2Coxrc [youtube.com] or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IHQqW8zOSk [youtube.com]

Re:Awesome idea! (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090913)

only these idiots are running round thinking knives are cool, changing uk to www seams a bit above them tbfh

What about fictional works? (2, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090785)

Is it common to disallow fictional work, such as movies, that have guns or knives used as intimidation? YouTube is a common place for budding movie producers to show short films, too. But if this kind of thing is censored in UK, then I guess YouTube doing it is going along with the flow.

Wow, what a surprise!! (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090787)

Ban guns... and criminals use knives! Who would have thought?

Eliminate all the controvertial content... (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090811)

...and YouTube becomes a much less interesting place. All you'll have left is a bunch of gossip videos by teens (oh wait those could be controvertial too) and a bunch of gaming video captures (isn't that controvertial too given the copyright issue over the game content). Well we can always just show people at Sunday school (oh no we can't - what's more controvertial than religion).

Seriously all this is is pandering. YouTube knows that most interesting content has a controversial element and that almost anything could be offensive to someone. It's just those who shout loudest that are too big a pain in the behind to bother butting heads with so they comply with these demands. (Ah the irony of giving in to terrorism, when the subject is weapons and violence).

The sensible and sane way to deal with this is simply to remove videos that contain illegal content (and bring themt to the attention of the authorities). Wouldn't most of the offending videos with guns and knives be in some way illegal? If not they should wait for the law to be modified.

 

What constitutes a "knife" video? (3, Funny)

DrBuzzo (913503) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090843)

Does a video of someone eating a steak get banned for having a sharp knife in it? Does the knife have to even be sharp? What about someone spreading butter on something?

Surely anyone who cuts rope or whittles a twig would be banned, but is it okay to have a Swiss army knife if you never take out the blade on camera and just use the cork screw and the screw driver?

Also, are scissors allowed? How about razors? Are electric razors allowed? exacto knives? Scalpels? Pointy sticks?

That's quite alright ... (3, Funny)

Tink2000 (524407) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090845)

They can just replace them with walkie-talkies.
Right?
RIGHT?!?

A few simple steps - (5, Interesting)

ColaMan (37550) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090863)

'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,' she said.

First it's guns,
then it's knives,
then it's drunken louts with their angry fists,
then it's "unsavoury behaviour" in the street,
then it's public demonstrations/rallies,
then it's any dissent at all.

All for the good of the people, of course.

Four words (1, Funny)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090895)

Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles.

Proxy weapons for films (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25090901)

Im having an inkling, you UK'ers can beat this, now, just use proxies :D

As in take a piece of paper and write "this is a gun" on it for your films now, or a piece of cardboard that says "this is a knife".

Grenades in movies will now be cans of processed spam, and swords will be links of bologna(hey it works in Warhammer).

But all in all your censorship is getting out of hand over there huh? Is it the same way in canada or do they have similar laws?

Im getting ready to go to school up there, i don't wanna drown in all the censorship :\

Knives don't kill people (1)

bigplrbear (1179259) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090909)

Chuck Norris kills people!

As long as YouTube doesn't ban... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090919)

...my [youtube.com] weapon [youtube.com] of [youtube.com] choice [youtube.com] .

Makes perfect sense (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090937)

1. Knife attack epidemic in one country
2. Videos depicting violence involving knives are viewed in this country just like in other countries
3. There's no such knife attack epidemic in other countries

Conclusion : banning these videos will fix the knife epidemic!

I say, correlation != causation, right? Therefore, no correlation = causation!!

Guns don't kill people... (0, Troll)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090945)

Videos of guns kill people.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 5 years ago | (#25090965)

My mistake. Someone already said something similar.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>