Research paper

YouTube Censorship


Airi Murasaki







EAP2, Writer’s Workshop
Thomas Leverett
April 28, 2008

Abstract
The topic of this paper is censorship of YouTube showing videos in the world. It argues that YouTube hasto have responsibility. There are three reasons for this argument. The first is that YouTube made people hurt. The second is that they freedom with no responsibility. The third is that They are mischievous and immoral.













Lately, YouTube is shared with so many people in the world. YouTube is shared with a lot of people all over the world. YouTube is entertainment and is a source of information for people. However, they have many problems for people and with countries in the world. There is no specific law against videoing violence (Revoir, 2007) In fact, there are so many claims about their inappropriate videos. For example, there are violent, religious, racial, individual, and sexy videos. “Those clips are very harsh to the feelings of Thai people and our culture” (The Nation, 2007.para 13). They repeat the same problem, although the nation insists on removing the video. YouTube is immoral, because they are using freedom of speech in making fun of the king of Thailand and keep showing unacceptable clips on the site. YouTube’s problems are caused by three reasons. They made people hurt by showing videos. That’s why YouTube was blocked in some countries. And they don’t have responsibility showing wrong videos to people in the world. And then, they are so mischievous and immoral.

YouTube was established in February 2005. They were bought by Google Inc. for 1.6 billion. YouTube is the site offering clips that anybody can share, by website, blog, mail, or cell phone. And YouTube contacted with CBS, BBC, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Group, Warner Music Group, NBA, Sundance Channel, and the others. Clips on YouTube have been watched by us every day.

First, YouTube made people feel very bad in a few ways. They broke individual reputations by showing clips in the world. One country is a splendid individual. It definitely should not be offended. For example, American people have strong pride as citizens in America. According to the Nation (2007), people in Thailand got hurt from a clip on You Tube. The content of the clip was denying the majesty of an individual. It is a problem that is showing knocking videos to people in the world just for fun in the other country. Moreover, “The clip was seen 16,000 times by people around the world” (The Economist, 2007, para.3). “But Thailand is only one of a growing number of countries that are worried about the power of Internet video, which cuts across linguistic borders and allows individuals anywhere to publish dissident tracts, sexually risqué films or other undesirable user generated content” (Pfanner. 2007). Another, YouTube,whitch is earning a huge amount, gets 1700 viewers of a bullying video. Panorama found hundreds of violent clips on YouTube (Revoir, 2007) YouTube doesn’t care if we put upany knocking videos about someone. Anyway they want to show movies for fun. Actually, people’s dignity has been lost so far and people have been damaged.

Second, they need to have responsibility. Anything in this world should be with responsibility anytime, even if it is freedom. YouTube is not controlling its freedom, because their site is sharing us all over the world; they keep having mistakes. So problems happen. “The incident shows how poorly the security of the Web is maintained” (Thai press report, 2008. Para 3). “The problem with this system is that video that seems inoffensive to viewers in San, California, where YouTube is based, can be incendiary in other places, at least to some individuals or governments” (Pfanner, 2007, para 18). We can see that they have so many objections from different countries. “In general, Debert said, Internet censorship is on the rise globally. The Open Net Initiative found that over the past year, more than two dozen countries regularly blocked sites entirely or filtered out content they considered offensive” (Pfanner, 2007, para 21). You too can bring down YouTube. Pakistan’s state-owned telecommunications company managed to cut YouTube off the World Wide Web for a couple hours recently. This shows us how fragile a web site YouTube is (Thai press passports, 2008, para 2) A Turkish also had problem with YouTube Tim Wu, an internet expert at Columbia Law School in New York, says sites like YouTube face huge problems if they wield editional power, and huge problems if they don't (The Economist, 2007, April 14). They made big international problems. They should have responsibility to manage this site and show us only right videos by using censorship in the world.

Third, YouTube seems like a cowardly company. Although they made the same problem as Thailand for China before, they did it again. This is because Thailand is so much less powerful compared to China. ”They asked that YouTube remove the clip. If YouTube had done so, the matter would have ended there. But YouTube said no. This forced the ICT to move last Wednesday to block the entire YouTube site” (The Nation, 2007, para 4). Such actions are inconsistent with good sense. “A Turkish court last month responded to the clips that appeared to denigrate Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, by ordering Internet providers to block access to YouTube. Iran has been barring YouTube and several other Western Web sites since December, objecting to corrupting influences” (Pfanner, 2007, para 20). YouTube keeps showing many wrong videos, although they have claims by people every time. That is why, the Nation says, “YouTube users have to discuss free speech, censorship, and cultural sensitivity” (The Nation. 2007, para 9). They are cheating for money. It is difficult to understand as a big company. We can not think that YouTube works well and has a good effect on people in the same situation. They need to work having moralty and justice.

In conclusion, people should not feel painful about the site. Next, YouTube’s security and censorship has been criticized by people in countries all over the world. And then YouTube has to be right and regret having problems between themselves and others. They need censorship, if any clip should be shown or not, for each video as soon as possible. YouTube should show only right videos for everybody like children and any person. Individual dignity should be protected in the world. The clips on sites should not affect us. We can say that YouTube is head of global communications, so we want them to have edit clips edited properly all the time. They need to manage properly. People in the world should ask them to do right work nowadays.

















Reference
The Nation (Thailand).(2007). Freedom Comes With Responsibility.
Retrieved March 24, 2008, from Lexis Nexis.
The Economist (2007, April 14), Whose tube?; Censorship and Internet.
Retrieved on March 24, 2008 from Lexis Nexis.
Pfanner, E (2007, April 27) Putting A Box Around The Tube; Governments see risk in Internet sharing sites. The International Herald Tribune.
Retrieved March 27, 2008 from Lexis Nexis.
The Press Report. (2008, March 13), World Internet Security Still Very Weak.
Retrieved on March20, 2008 from Lexis Nexis.
Revoir, P (2007, July 30), YouTube ‘cashes in on footage of beaten children.
Retroieved on April 28, 2008 from Lexis Nexis.