Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

YouTube Bans Gun and Knife Videos In the UK

Posted by timothy on Sun Sep 21, 2008 01:50 AM
from the long-chain-of-abuses-and-usurpations dept.
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by ichbineinneuben (1065378) on Sunday September 21 2008, @01:53AM (#25090613)
    Guns and knives don't kill people. Videos kill people.
    • by h4rm0ny (722443) <h4rm0ny.tarddell@net> on Sunday September 21 2008, @02:02AM (#25090649) Journal

      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.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2008, @02:28AM (#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.)

          • by damburger (981828) on Sunday September 21 2008, @05:34AM (#25091525)

            There have already been calls in this country to ban kitchen knives with a point, I shit you not. Some chefs have said that you can use knives without points for most things anyway, and that pointless knives are the norm in China and they do OK.

            Others point out that gang violence in China simply involves fatal hackings instead of fatal stabbings.

        • by dangitman (862676) on Sunday September 21 2008, @02:39AM (#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?

          • by paganizer (566360) <thegrove1&hotmail,com> on Sunday September 21 2008, @02:47AM (#25090885) Homepage Journal

            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.

                  • by ultranova (717540) on Sunday September 21 2008, @06:09AM (#25091681)

                    You can with a car, too. In fact, especially if you don't know how. Let's ban cars!

                    Or maybe we could require anyone who wants to operate a car to pass some kind of test and medical exam first. Regulate drivers, with something like a driving license, or something ?

              • by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Sunday September 21 2008, @08:36AM (#25092199)
                Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun?

                1. I like target shooting
                2. I like to collect finely made items
                3. I live way the hell out in the country, and coyotes have been taking some of the smaller livestock
                4. I like to and it is legal
                5. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away

                (These may or may not apply to me personally)

                The idiots on Youtube? Bust em. They shouldn't be allowed near a squirtgun.
                But a firearm in my hands is zero danger to you. You're in more danger from your neighbors car. Unless of course you try to do harm to me and mine.

                Are you that paranoid?
        • by itsdapead (734413) on Sunday September 21 2008, @08:41AM (#25092221)

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

          We have knives.

          The USA has Janet Jackson's nipple... or, in some states, try mentioning dice (gambling!) or magic (religion!) in a school maths book.

          I remember once, while visiting the USA, I caught a showing of the British political satire/thriller "To Play The King" on PBS. PBS felt it necessary to prefix the show with a patronising lecture on why monarchies were a bad thing and the US had fought a war of independence against the idea. I was astounded - we might get warnings about potentially offensive material/flashing lights/may contain nuts before a show, we might get slightly edited versions of shows which are shown when the kids are awake, we might get "helpline numbers" if a show mentions child abuse or AIDS but we do not get lectured on how we should interpret the show we are about to see.

          Different folks, different disproportionate obsessions, I suppose. Now, the knife crime figures are being shamelessly talked up at the moment, but I think its pretty safe to say that they account for more deaths than "wardrobe malfunction".

          • by atriusofbricia (686672) on Sunday September 21 2008, @02:58AM (#25090949) Journal

            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. ;)

  • by compumike (454538) on Sunday September 21 2008, @01:57AM (#25090633) Homepage

    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]

      • by pla (258480) on Sunday September 21 2008, @07:22AM (#25091917) Journal
        the internet is NOT a ticket to do as you please.

        True.

        And if those videos commit a real crime (as in, an actual murder rather than some twit mangling a perfectly good side of beef), they at least provide evidence to use against the attacker.

        If not? Well, I fail to see the problem with some twit mangling a side of beef, as long as he owns it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2008, @01:58AM (#25090635)
    VIDEO of weapons scares them? Do they ban Schwarzenegger movies too?
    • by MobyDisk (75490) on Sunday September 21 2008, @02:27AM (#25090799) Homepage

      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)

        • Uhm, it doesn't matter how much they raise or lower the taxes in California. There will always be a shortfall because non-discretionary spending is set (by law) at something like 103% of the state budget. Idiot people kept voting in mandatory money for their pet projects. 3% here, 5% there, and now we are required to spend more than will be available.

          That is what Ahnold meant when he said the budget is inherently broken. Fixing it is proving impossible. No one is willing to cut even one dollar from anything. I'd like to see a (state) Constitutional amendment that penalizes the members of the assembly by not paying them for the periods when we don't have a budget. I think we're up to three months now. A 25% salary cut across the board for all assembly members sounds like a damn good idea. Alternately, we could just lynch a few of the bastards. Either way works for me.

  • by Kingrames (858416) on Sunday September 21 2008, @01:58AM (#25090637)
    Nobody knows how to use a knife until they first search for it on youtube.
  • 'knife crime?' (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2008, @02:03AM (#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.

  • Really increased? (Score:5, Informative)

    by duck0 (1073338) on Sunday September 21 2008, @02:08AM (#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.

  • Awesome idea! (Score:5, Informative)

    by uvajed_ekil (914487) on Sunday September 21 2008, @02:21AM (#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]

  • by ColaMan (37550) on Sunday September 21 2008, @02:40AM (#25090863) Homepage Journal

    '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.

  • by Karellen (104380) on Sunday September 21 2008, @03:20AM (#25091029) Homepage

    Knife crime has not increased in the UK.

    Reporting of knife crime in the UK has increased dramatically. It just happens to be what the papers happen to be focusing on this year. Last year it was the McCann thing. A few years ago it was the great paedophile threat, which came about due to one or two high-profile cases featuring photogenic young girls. Before that it was ... thankfully I can't remember.

    Anyway, the papers finally decided they needed new "fear" stories to run and grab headlines with. Knife crime appears to be the one they're rallied around this time.

    You are still much, much more likely to die in a car accident than to be stabbed to death by a "teenage yob". Doesn't make good headlines though or instill the same level of fear though, does it?

      • Re:first post (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pjt33 (739471) on Sunday September 21 2008, @03:06AM (#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.