Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Censorship Government Politics

YouTube Bans Gun and Knife Videos In the UK 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Bans Gun and Knife Videos In the UK

Comments Filter:
  • Cooking knives (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lucky75 ( 1265142 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:05AM (#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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:05AM (#25090671)

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

  • by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:10AM (#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!" ??
  • by Skapare ( 16644 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:26AM (#25090785) Homepage

    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.

  • by ColaMan ( 37550 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @02:40AM (#25090863) 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 atriusofbricia ( 686672 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:14AM (#25091015) Journal

    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.

  • WTFPOST (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sporkme ( 983186 ) * on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:20AM (#25091027) Homepage
    The link in the article leads to a Slashdot 404. Wtf

    The link is this []

    What a noodle-spined move on the part of Google! If only UN language were so effective on the rogue nations of the world!

    "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," said Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who has also stated that police should restrict photography by citizens. Indeed, why not suppress free speech in in all ways in Britain and in the rest of the world, you dunce? It would certainly decrease violence!

    The hysterical myths about computer game violence have in many cases been debunked, as recently discussed [], and why are YouTube videos any different? Movies, games and books which incite dissent are next on the worldwide chopping block, folks! To see Google assume the position on this debate, which includes no specific legislation, is a grim forecast on government intervening in our daily lives with their friendly companies on Politically Correct leashes opening our bedroom doors for them.

    The cheeky bastards.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:25AM (#25091057)

    "(jk - I think he has been lowering taxes)"

    But by lowering taxes, the state government hasn't gotten the income it needs, and our education system (including the state universities, such as UCLA and Berkley) is taking a large hit. He is also threatening to close state parks, trim health care, and release prisoners in order to help close the budget hole. Californians are being robbed in more ways then money.... []

  • by hax0r_this ( 1073148 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:28AM (#25091071)
    What is that a video of? I live in America, I don't care to follow it and find out whether or not I'll be arrested.
  • by plusser ( 685253 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @03:42AM (#25091137)

    The main problem within the UK is that over the last few decades we have decided that we have rights rather than understand that responsibilities go with those rights. We have always had a "thug" (or gang) culture somewhere in our society, but we have never had the leadership to sort out these problems directly, instead we blame ethic minorities, drugs, gambling and any other area of perceived illegal activity, all of which are indirectly related to thug culture. However, we never appear to properly examine the problem because we are too quick to blame and not to understand.

    I have a very good example. I was involved in a serious car accident on Friday, quite frankly I should not be here, yet alone sitting at the computer uninjured. The accident was caused by the car I was travelling in (being driven by my future father in-law) was side-swiped by a left hand drive Portuguese lorry trying to more into the middle lane of the motorway, without realising that we were there. The car spun, hit the soft embankment, rolled twice and dug itself in upright on all four wheels.

    There is a known problem with these lorries in that they have a massive blind spot. Unfortunately, knowing our xenophobic press, if the actually bother to do their research as this problem is quite serious, they would seek to ban every foreign lorry on British roads, even though Irish lorries are Right Hand Drive and British and Irish lorries cold potentially have the same blind stop when driven in Continental Europe, as they drive on the right instead of the left.

    I myself don't blame the lorry driver in so much that he was doing his job. I do feel that the company that hired the lorry and haulier hold responsibility for attempting to cut costs.

    For want of a better expression, there is technology in a £30 mobile phone (i.e. camera and screen) that could be used as an effective blind spot mirror. In addition, many cars today have reversing sensors that could be employed to warn lorry drivers that the lane next to them is not clear.

    Now what has this got to do with knife crime? not a lot you would think? Well actually it has. Sadly you are more likely to die at the hands of a car than a knife in the UK. On that level will You Tube be banning the viewing of any car on their website? Of course not. Cars (and I suppose lorries) can be used to kill and so can knives, but then knives are even more vital to society than cars; you can't cut your food without a knife, but you can walk instead of drive.

    So, when are we answer the question properly - Why do people wish to carry knives for self defence?

  • by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:00AM (#25091397)
    I'm looking forward to the upcoming Brick Epidemic, the following Cobblestone Conundrum, and finally the Pointy-stick Problem.

    If rocks and sticks are just as lethal and effective as guns and knives, as you claim, then why do you Americans insist you have to have the right to carry handguns, assault rifles, etc, etc? Just put a pointy stick in your back pocket.

    Don't be a hypocrite: Guns and knives are designed to kill people (before you start sneering about butter knives, pop guns, etc; just assume the words are defined sensibly as the lethal kind of offensive weapon). Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people who annoy or frighten you. Don't claim they are no more dangerous than "pointy sticks".

  • by cliffski ( 65094 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:27AM (#25091489) Homepage

    burglaries per capita: []

    The US has a higher rate than France, Ireland and Greence. Why don't all those handguns prevent people stealing from houses?

  • by wisty ( 1335733 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @05:55AM (#25091617)
    Good article. It says that crime rates in the UK are flat, or decreasing. The only reason the media are worried is because changing demographics are shifting poor people from Glasgow (and other traditionally poor regions) into London, and bringing crime closer to the reporters.
  • Re:first post (Score:3, Interesting)

    by centuren ( 106470 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @06:20AM (#25091707) Homepage Journal

    Mod parent up. True English has uses 'vet' in common speech all the time.

    Typos aside (always understandable), is the issue here that Uvajed's post thought it interesting that the primary British news source used "vet" in the primary English-language manner?

    Fascinating that it's become ubiquitous enough that it's normal use, by a source most likely to use it so, can be considered interesting. Considering BBC being a reputable news agency, I don't see any other way it really could be used. They'd certainly not use it as an abbreviation.

  • by OeLeWaPpErKe ( 412765 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @07:05AM (#25091853) Homepage

    Perhaps you should read the link ... Unless you're going to claim that it isn't logically proven (or "scientifically proven") by those facts. Of course since Godel we know that nothing can be logically proven. It could all be a great coincidence, and you can never exclude any amount of coincidences, therefore "any model fits". It could all be random. However if we really thought like that, we'd all still live in caves, so reasonable people are going to go with that the article proves it until something better comes along.

    The cycle of violence, obviously was not started by the ban. However the ban, both on guns and later on knives, did not only NOT stop the problem, but actually accelerated it.

    "An inconvenient truth" - one that is actually true

  • 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 pwizard2 ( 920421 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:42AM (#25092227)

    Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun?

    It's about freedom. As an American, I have certain rights that people before me fought and died to give me. One of these is gun ownership, as described in the constitution. As a competent, law-abiding citizen, I should be able to own a gun if I wish and be able to freely use it in certain instances, such as for sport or in cases where my life or someone else's life is directly being threatened. Even in the last scenario, I would not pull the trigger unless I had no choice.

    Now, gun ownership isn't for everyone, and I can understand that. Some people feel the need to have a gun around for legitimate purposes, such as protection, collection, or hunting (I'm from Alabama, and quite a bit of hunting goes on down here) Some people don't want a gun, and that's okay, too.

    Freedom is about letting both types of people have what they want. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, but never at the expense of freedom.

  • by electrictroy ( 912290 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:47AM (#25092259)

    First they took our guns.

    Then they took away our right of free speech.

    Next they took us to the cotton plantation to work the fields.

  • Get real (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @10:35AM (#25092913)

    >> '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."

    Sure lets ruin the whole notion of free speech and an uncensored internet just because of a few kids with knives. Why is it these crazy liberal do-gooders have no notion of perspective?

    Now if you REALLY want to address violence, then punish the biggest perpitrators of violence (by far) in the world, namely the US government.

  • by sqldr ( 838964 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @10:39AM (#25092941)
    Us Brits once fought for freedom too. It was called the English civil war, and Thomas Jefferson was inspired by it in the war for US independence. [citation needed, i know, but i can't be arsed. look it up, it's there]. When the parliamentarians found themselves up against the catholics, the new model army was formed, and people that NEEDED guns got them, in vast supply. I guess it's a different philosophy here. People fighting against a corrupt government weren't a loosely-knit group of people coming out of their houses with the gun they kept in their cupboards, they were an army formed by a cause big enough to form it. That's why we didn't bother with the "right to bare arms" rule when democracy was won in 1646.
  • by NotBornYesterday ( 1093817 ) * on Sunday September 21, 2008 @10:39AM (#25092947) Journal

    "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?

    Gun control advocates have employed a slippery slope approach to accomplishing what they cannot do outright. For example. here in Massachusetts, handgun licenses are issued only at the discretion of the local chief of police. While that sounds reasonable on its face, what this means in terms of real-world effect is that the police chiefs of certain towns and cities have de facto repealed the Second Amendment for most citizens. Patterns of abuse range from outright denial of a permit to a qualified and law-abiding citizen, to simply never allowing the process to finish, by dragging it out for months.

    My right to vote, or free speech, or freedom of worship do not depend on my police chief's permission, nor should they. Why should my right to bear arms be restricted? I have not been deemed a threat to anyone around me. The free speech and fifth amendment rights of a convicted murderer/rapist receive more protection than the self-defense rights of an innocent man in this country.

  • by QuickSilver_999 ( 166186 ) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @11:35AM (#25093333)

    Oh but officer, this 9mm is for foxes, dontcherknow.

    Funny you should bring that one up. My landlord just purchased a nice .45 cal a couple of weeks ago (tritium night sights, grip squeeze integral laser site, beautiful tool) because he got tired the second time he had to run from a bear while working on his farm outside of town. He said "when you look back and see something that big running after you, and catching up, and you're praying you left the RV door unlocked so you can get in quickly, you start thinking it might be wise to carry something big enough to put him down."

    When I was doing guard work, we were told in our firearms course to always refer to our sidearms as either sidearms or firearms or tools. Never a weapon. Only bad guys have weapons. Good guys have tools.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @12:34PM (#25093753)

    "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 do not believe you. I've relied on PBS for most of my British media (other than MTV for the Young Ones) since 1970. I've never seen nor heard of such a caveat. Where was the series of pre-show lectures on the evils of the Black and Tans before an airing of "The Irish RM"? Or, for that matter, how come no such introductory remarks before "Blackadder"? Provide a date and a video clip and "we" will believe you.

  • Re:first post (Score:2, Interesting)

    by thePowerOfGrayskull ( 905905 ) <.marc.paradise. .at.> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:25PM (#25098679) Homepage Journal
    I've heard that quite a few times, but I've not seen anything that supports it.

It's fabulous! We haven't seen anything like it in the last half an hour! -- Macy's