YouTube is a popular, interactive website that allows people to preview, create and post videos for free. Anyone can upload content, and it is accessible for all, even if the content is inappropriate for kids.
While pornography is now "a given,” there are now other hazards inappropriate for children to view. A new dangerous trend is experimental videos uploaded to YouTube with a 'try this at home,' influence that is resulting in injury and death.
Think & Ask is a nonprofit news agency that produces online articles reflecting cultural references and investigative reports. Approximately 200 questionable videos viewed by Think & Ask during a three day period in January 2007 did not require a login. The videos show a variety of dangerous actions and instructions such as 'how to be cool with drugs'. One teen smokes marijuana and then points a gun to his head after several rounds with his bong, calling his video 'we gotta stay high.'
YouTube has no form of regulation for posting videos, but the videos will be removed from the site if viewers decide to complain and claim that it has inappropriate content. There have been several allegations that kids have been influenced by the violence from YouTube and were encouraged to produce their own experiments and footage.
For example, a recent arrest was made when four teenage boys from Mississauga gang-raped a 16-year-old girl. They were caught by the police because the boys had made a YouTube video of it that was being sent to students around their school. The victim was drugged and had no recollection of the crime committed against her, so if it wasn't for those boys filming it, they might not have been caught.
It is arguable to say that the boys made the video because of the hype that homemade videos are receiving from YouTube, but there is no way to prove that violent video postings on YouTube is a real issue or not.
In our society, violence is entertainment, whether it is real or just staged. Nevertheless, even if YouTube / viewers cannot prove that a video is real or fake, banning all types of violent videos is not the answer. It does not seem right that a website, which is just a medium for providing entertainment, is being blamed for influencing people to commit crimes.
It is also not fair to say that violent video games, YouTube videos or certain music causes violent happenings. It is up to the parents as well as the people who listen and watch videos as a form of entertainment to make decisions for themselves. We can not and should not have to babysit.
Than again, where should viewers, parents, businesses and or the government draw the line?
A 19-year-old shows viewers that holding a lighter to an aerosol stream of bug spray provides a torch to play with.
Is this entertainment, freedom of speech, his right to be stupid or should this be a video deemed inappropriate and not allowed to be viewed on YouTube?
The Chocking Game
There are numerous videos that show how to do a sleeper hold, also known as The Choking Game at teen parties. The choking game has been attributed to a number of teenage deaths as well as numerous victims who have suffered permanent neurological damage from the game.
A British motorcyclist constantly toys with police by recording his careless speed driving and posting the video on YouTube minus the date. Because the laws state that a ticket must be issued within 14 days of the act, police can not issue the motorcyclist a citation.
Other games that inspire dangerous actions are fledgling sponsors that announce “Can You Top This” contests where kids are doing incredibly stupid stunts or lighting themselves on fire in front of cameras, in order to win prizes.
At Break.com, site owner Keith Richman holds video popularity contests and pays the winners. Last year, he paid $500 for rights to video of a dry ice bomb blowing up in a man's hand, according to Charlie Dyess – the man featured in the video.
"At first, I thought my fingers were gone. I thought I blew them off," Dyess said. Shrapnel from the bottle tore into his arm, and he temporarily lost hearing in his right ear.
Dyess recovered, and not long after, he and the man behind the camera decided to enter Break.com's contest. They won second place and he gloated about receiving $500 for the act of stupidly.
However, the scarier part is that at the time of the filming, Charlie Dyess said he was working on a movie project with his church's youth group – there are several teens in the video. He agreed the video may in fact inspire other stupid pranks but doesn't see any problem or conflict of interest in creating stunts of stupidly.
"I know from working with youth that no matter what you preach they're going to do anything they want," he said.
Somewhere in his mind I guess he figured if you can't beat em join em... I smell a future Darwin Award winner.
As if joining them wasn't bad enough, Charlie Dyess continued his praise of stupidity by saying:
"These kids are bored and they want to do something," he said. Video cameras and Web site distribution have "brought the prankster out in everybody."
Pranksters or modern day Gladiators?
One college student said in an interview
"I think people can post whatever they want. It's obviously not cool if someone posted videos of beating people up or killing them. But what about the news that shows people all the time like that. Or movies? That's allowed. You can't allow one without the other," said Kevin Welsh, a Brock University student.
- What is the difference?
- Is there a difference?
- Where should the line be drawn?
