David Kidney
YouTube
Following an Argus story last month about disturbing images celebrating gang violence in Churchill Square and other parts of the city appearing on the internet, I am asking both the Home Office and the communications regulator Ofcom to look at whether we need to do more to control what appears on websites like YouTube.
There is no doubt that the internet is a huge force for good in the world. Through it we can communicate across geographical, national and political boundaries. We can keep in daily contact with family and friends on the other side of the world. We have access to information, ideas and entertainment of all kinds. We can share the experiences of people whose lives are very different from our own. And when governments try to censor the political content of websites there is, quite rightly, an outcry.
But the internet can be used for more sinister purposes as well. For instance, there is general international agreement about clamping down on internet child pornography and the Internet Watch organisation has played a leading role in that.
And, every so often, some event makes many of us ask what we can do to minimise the internet’s potential for harm.
The violent death of Brighton teacher Jane Longhurst was one event that made many of us pause for thought. It raised concerns about access to and the effects on behaviour of violent internet pornography.
I congratulate the Argus on the vital role it played in backing the campaign by Jane’s mother Liz to get government action to curb this extreme pornography which usually features women as victims. The campaign was later backed by Amnesty International and has led to legislation soon to come before Parliament about possession of such images.
As one of the MPs who was with Mrs Longhurst at many her meetings with government ministers and civil servants, I discovered just how difficult it is to control what is on the internet, especially when – unlike with the issue of child pornography – there is no international consensus about what is or is not acceptable.
For, by its nature the internet is international and it can sometimes be difficult, if not imposible to track down where material on it originates.
I t is a different kind of violence –highlighted last month by the Argus - which has once again raised this issue for me and many people who have been in touch with me.
In this case there is no real doubt about the origin.
The pictures, apparently taken from CCVT cameras and from mobile phones, glorified real life violence. They showed a gang fight and violent attack in Brighton’s Churchill Square, harassment and violence at Moulsecoomb railway station and an incident on a bus.
The images had been edited with a music track and posted on YouTube.
Everyone who has seen this footage and the stills from it has been shocked, not only by the mindless and inexcusable thuggery but also by the fact that it has been made publicly available in a way which seems to celebrate extreme aggression. There is no doubt that the intention of those who did this was to boast about their involvement in the violence.
I know that Sussex Police are investigating how the CCTV footage got onto the internet.
Of course, the very great virtue of YouTube is that it provides a space where anyone can post their films and thoughts and ideas. But YouTube has a code of practice which should exclude material like the Brighton pictures. The fact that it did not exclude them until a fuss was made raises at the very least questions about how that code of practise is monitored.
That is why I am asking the Home Office and the communications watchdog Ofcom to consider whether stricter regulation is needed, not just for YouTube but also for other sites like it.
I don’t know the answers to those questions. It could be that self-regulation by the industry is enough and that YouTube were just sloppy in letting these images through.
I welcome the fact that the courts have dealt with at least some of those involved in the violent incidents which were shown. The question I believe we now need to consider is : do the courts also need a power – if they don’t already have it - to deal with those who posted or sanctioned the posting of the material on YouTube? If they don’t have that power already , then maybe the law needs changing.
Argus – April 2007
David Lepper MP
Brighton Pavilion
