Dan Sabbagh, Media Editor
Your last chance to get tickets to Top Gear Live
Three Scottish teenagers from Glasgow’s Xcross gang put a video on YouTube in which they gloated over the killing of a 21-year-old father.
In the film they threaten another man - called Jinky - with the same punishment: “Jinky, wee man, get back to Norfy [a tower on a local council estate] before we murder ye like Willie Smith, ye dafty, do you want to get put in a box an’ all?”
Caught by the police, the three stars of the disturbing internet movie pleaded guilty to culpable homicide last week, allowing the story of their online bragging to be told. Plastered all over the Scottish newspapers last week, it is hardly surprising that the shock that such videos exist have begun to lead to calls for better regulation of the video-sharing website.
In the past fortnight MPs have queued up to criticise YouTube in an attempt to look tough on law and order, in response to the spate of gun crime. As a result, John Whittingdale, who chairs the Commons Culture Select Committee, is considering a public enquiry into the topic.
“What we’re seeing is the emergence of this, and a whole series of undesirable things emerging from new media,” Mr Whittingdale said. “There are also concerns about cyber-bullying and about the use by some Islamic fundamentalist groups of some pretty appalling websites.”
Ivan Lewis, a health minister, who has some responsiblity for “inter-generational issues”, delivered a warning in Sunday’s Observer that companies should “do everything in their power” to prevent such material appearing online - a clear hint of how far concerns have reached at the political level. On the other side of the fence, David Cameron called for curbs on violent music and games, as the Tory leader strayed close to the issue of online regulation.
The storm is an indication of how the “you can’t regulate the internet” debate is shifting. Two years ago, Lord Currie of Marylebone, Ofcom’s chairman, argued that there was no need for any specific internet regulation, because existing laws, such as those covering incitment to racial hatred, made illegal anything that was likely to provoke the most offense.
Yet there is a recognition privately in regulatory circles that the debate is being reopened - although there are no plans as yet for a formal Ofcom consultation - and acknowledgement that this is an issue that the Government may force the communications authority to consider.
“I’m not sure there is currently the case for any statutory intervention,” Mr Whittingdale said, “but we want to see Google and the internet service providers getting together and focusing on what might be done.” An inquiry from Mr Whittingdale’s committee is likely in the next few months.
YouTube, which is owned by Google, responded by saying that it has its own policing system. The network does have a set of “community guidelines”, which can be found on the terms of use part of the website. These rule out “graphic or gratuituous violence” and “pornography or sexually explicit content”, but the system relies on community policing.
Viewers unhappy with a video have to mark it as inappropriate and YouTube promises to review that clip within 30 minutes - although with six hours of content being posted every single minute at current rates, it is hard, if not impossible, to see how every single video can be examined.
A spokesman for the website says: “YouTube is, in the end, a mirror for society; if people don’t like what they see, changing the mirror isn’t the answer to the problem.”
It is unlikely that a solution lies with the expansion of Ofcom’s caller centre, which handles viewer complaints about television - “Who would pay for it?” one insider asks - but there is some interest, particularly among Conservatives, in trying to extend the familiar film rating system used by the British Board of Film Classification, which is concerned that its efforts to tighten standards by extending its remit to include computer games have been undone. For the moment, YouTube is resistant, although it does restrict some content to the over18s, but that is unlikely to satisfy the growing band of political critics; if the issues of children and gangs remains in the public eye for much longer - and it probably will - the prospect of tightening internet regulation becomes more and more likely. Or YouTube will have to lobby effectively.
Explore your passion for food with the delights of Thai, Indian & Chinese cooking
In our new series, Tony Hawks takes a dry, wry look at modern life - junk mail, interminable meetings and snooty sales assistants
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
2007
£30,000
2006
£14,337
2008
£39,937
Great car insurance deals online
c.£75,000
GlosFirstmeansbusiness
Gloucestershire
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
£
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
Competitive Package
Npower
West Midlands
1 & 2 Bed apartments
From £249,995
Great Investment, River Views
Great Dubai Investment Opportunities
from £89,950
low-cost ownership homes in London
Las Vegas SALE!
£POA
With Ramblers Worldwide Holidays!
£POA
List your property with two leading travel websites
£POA
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - search houses for sale and rooms and property to rent in the UK. Milkround Job Search - for graduate careers in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Are the Conservatives really suggesting that the British Board of Film Classification will have to try and rate all Internet video content? This would be an unimaginably huge task.
The non-censorship of the Internet is a good thing not just because of free speech issues, but because it' makes it easier to use. If I post content on the Internet, no official body has to review it, and I don't have to worry about it being taken down by anyone but the person hosting it. Trying to police the Internet would be a waste of time and money, and discourage involvement in it.
When the law regulates the content that can appear on our movie screens and the games that can appear on our shelves, they're dealing with big corporations. If the law tries to regulate the Internet, it will be dealing with the independent, the little guy; and if the laws are too complex to navigate, the little guy just won't bother.
Ross, Edinburgh,
But surely the morons have done a great public service by making video confessions and posting them on line?
Here's a modest proposal - recruit a few geeks to the police and have them surf the Youtube in connection with wanted criminals and gangs. Considering how stupid our wannabe Al Capones are, the cops would clean up with such a pro-active attitude!
Andy, Bristol, UK
It's the same redundant argument about violent videos and games. I'm pretty certain that the Visigoths played Doom and Quake before they sacked Rome, the Vikings watched Pulp Fiction and that Vlad the Impaler watched Saw II. The truth is that the medium is not a cause of our violent society it's a symptom. Many people including myself play some violent games where we get to hurt fictional characters because I am not permitted to defend myself against the scum roaming our streets (and that is not inherently a bad thing) and it's a release for me. Instead of fixating on the games how about fixating on the discipline of the kids who turn into thugs? How about jailing parents of vandals and violent children and putting the kids in care? How about pulling the troops out of Iraq and sticking them on the streets for a few months and have an under 16 curfew until Christmas. Teach the kids who rules them, the adults. Right now they fear no one. Teach them fear and respect; Banning games won't.
Martin, Bristol, UK
This is yet another example of "shoot the messenger". All windbag politicians want to do is pass yet more laws. The public sector industry that will grow on the back of the swelling statute book is also in favour. Many acres of carpet and more index linked pensions are at stake. The problem is the underlying behaviour. Censoring YouTube or any other medium is irrelevant. The same reasoning says that The Times and other papers should be banned from reporting such crimes. Doubtless our masters would like that too. Perhaps this is the first step along that path.
Ray Warren, Dartmouth,
Quite simply the internet should be censored at source, i.e. at the ISP servers. For MUCH too long the ISP's have said it is not their job, but it IS their job. If a terrestrial tv channel was spewing out the type of junk that is on YouTube and the internet generally it would be closed down, like red hot dutch was, and the internet should be governed the same way.
Tom, Hastings, UK
"it is hard, if not impossible, to see how every single video can be examined"
It is actually quite easy - employ people to do it. I do not see why the profitability of You Tube should be used by them as an excuse for not properly monitoring their site.
Jim, Nizwa, Oman,
What on earth google wanted to buy a piece of junk called YouTube for is anyones guess. The sooner they ban youtube and the internet the better for everyone ,and take the kids camera phones away as well. Im serious, since the internet and camera phones came into existence this Country has gone down the tubes, to excuse the pun. They want to make internet access 18 years and over only.
Patrick, Hastings, Sussex