November 7, 2007 2:20 PM PST
Perspective: In Finland shooting, fallout for YouTube?
See all Perspectives
- Related Stories
-
Politicos take on YouTube, video's future
May 10, 2007 -
Journalist at center of YouTube case
May 8, 2007 -
Bill would stiffen penalties for crimes posted online
January 25, 2007
Predictably, some media outlets are already producing stories that imply Google's YouTube is a scary place where hateful polemics can be broadcast, unmolested by more thoughtful minds.
That's terribly unfair. What people should remember is that YouTube did not glorify the teenage gunman who went on the killing spree in Finland early Tuesday morning. Nor did the world's largest and most influential video-sharing site help him spread his angry message. Nonetheless, in the wake of yet another senseless shooting on a school campus, people will be looking for scapegoats.
The alleged shooter, 18, posted a video called "Jokela High School Massacre" to YouTube shortly before opening fire on classmates at Jokela High School in Tuusula, located about 30 miles north of Finland's capital Helsinki, according to a report in Britain's The Telegraph. Eight students and the school's principal were killed, according to the publication. The young gunman shot himself, and later died from the injuries.
"Our hearts go out to the families who have lost loved ones in this tragedy," said Jaime Schopflin, a YouTube spokeswoman. "We have removed the video and disabled the user's account."
The video was posted under the shooter's YouTube username, Sturmgeist89. It showed a photo of what is believed to be Jokela High School, the Telegraph reported. The photo dissolves to reveal a picture of a man pointing at the camera with a gun. YouTube has removed the video and others posted under Sturmgeist89, and has suspended the account, which was believed to belong to the gunman. Sturmgeist means "storm spirit" in German, according to Britain-based publication Metro.
Should YouTube have done something to stop this? Was the company responsible for sounding alarms? Or does a public forum like YouTube embolden disturbed people to seize the limelight through violent action?
Blaming YouTube in such a situation would be equivalent to holding the U.S. Postal Service responsible for delivering the messages sent by the Zodiac Killer, a serial killer believed to have murdered at least five people in the San Francisco Bay Area in the late 1960s and 1970s. The Zodiac sent taunting letters to authorities and local newspapers bragging about the killings, and threatening to do more. He was never caught.
The list of self-glorifying killers, pre-YouTube, goes on, of course. Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, sent long, antitechnology rants to newspapers. He even got two publications to print one of them, though it was in an effort on their part to avoid further bloodshed.
For a teenager today, posting a YouTube video is like sending a letter to the local newspaper. Want to get your message out, no matter how terrible it is? You don't need to mail a letter, just post a video.
So what's YouTube's role? YouTube is a tool anyone can use, not an edited newspaper. It's policed by the community that uses it. If something is indeed offensive, it can be removed. Yes, it's a change from the old days, when a few people controlled who gets to speak at the bully pulpit. This is the democratization of information. No one gets to control who gets to say what anymore.
According to the Metro, many of the same materials that the alleged gunman posted at YouTube were also up on his own Web site. In fact, you could argue the evidence that there was something wrong with this young man was there for everyone to see. Apparently, the right people didn't notice.
But should YouTube be dragged into the muck of a killer just because he posted some videos there? No way.
Biography
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment.
See more CNET content tagged:
Finland, YouTube, newspaper, publication, Britain
I regret the somewhat insulting header, but your lack of familiarity with some of the worst aspects of YouTube is in itself insulting when coming from someone who theoretically should know better.
I mean, do you ever read the news?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SWPFJTY1PKVGXQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/11/07/nutube107.xml
Check out these sweet vids, courtesy of Google/YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8W4nBAFXBk
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=abdullah1425
Just a few examples of many similar that can be found there, apparently all with Google/YouTube's blessings: despite numerous complaints - month after month - they are never taken down, nor are the authors' accounts ever suspended.
We're far from the realm of unhappy teenagers sending threatening letters via the USPS to the editor of their local paper...
What's your take on these videos, Mr. Sandoval?
Or don't they fit the template?
This is just another Yahoo incident! "We're not to blame!" Except this time people were KILLED!
Do you have any idea of the volume of videos posted there each hour? I'm sure it's huge. There is no way to monitor those posts individually. And why stop at YouTube? There are tons of websites that allow posting of user information. Like this one. Would CNET be complicit in the same situation?
You're essentially saying YouTube shouldn't exist, because they sure can't do what you think they should do...
In short, any moral person would like to destroy or eradicate the very spirit that invoked such a heinous act. However, suffice to say, philosophically, killing the proverbial "Messenger" will not stop the problem. Nor will burning paper because it held the words of a racist, crush the rock of The Ten Commandments because someone does not believe or silence the speech of a race because of one difference or another. After all, destroying the medium that is used to convey the discourse does not solve the problem. Ultimately, the last medium will be the voice of another that is connected to a thought.
We asked for democracy & we got it. We can't start blaming people, corporations and others just because we don't like what someone is saying, period. The video itself sounds like it was cryptic with no real message until AFTER the shootings occurred. Personally, I haven't seen it, but from the way it's been described by all news outlets, it certainly sounds to me like it really could have meant anything. Could've even been a commentary on school shootings themselves. Creative people are generally strange and their messages are strange also. Censor them & all you have left is man-made creativity - not an original thought in the bunch. If that's what we're aiming for, then seriously - I don't want to be an American anymore.
Bottom line...I still stand by democracy. Don't censor what you are afraid of. We, as a people, were so terrified of Socrates that we made him drink poison. But his thoughts & teachings will be remembered for generations. Most people can only dream of having that kind of impact. Writing books, becoming president and teaching in itself wouldn't even guarantee it. I think YouTube did the right thing here. They saw a cryptic video and thought, "Ehhh...I have no idea what he's trying to say. Post it." So it was a mistake. Are you crucified for all your mistakes? Would you like to be? Funny. I thought Jesus died for our mistakes. Do we really want to put YouTube in that category of infalliable? Find a religion and follow that if you really feel the need to blame someone for senseless acts - not some Corporate Conglomerate. Any religion. I don't care which, just blame your God. Trust me, he can take it. If he really cared about what we thought of him he'd have smited all of us by now - especially me. Catholics cringe at the way I disrespect my god, yet I see it as an incredibly healthy way to keep myself going.
On the other hand, anything the Jihadis call offensive is off the net, fast.
I read part of what this loser had to say, and it's just typical teen ager angst, taken to an extreme. Another crybaby who cannot handle the real world.
Watch, there will be many teen agers copying this guy, especially after his babel gets circulated. It's going to resonate.
www.thehurlyburly.blogspot.com
Critics of the measure allege that it is a thinly veiled and dangerous attempt to criminalize dissent. Such concern is based on the bill's vague and open-ended language that, critics say, could be used by the government to trample basic rights to free speech and assembly and turn legitimate dissent into thought crimes.
The legislation, for instance, defines "violent radicalization" as "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." The bill makes no attempt to define what an "extremist belief system" might be. Nor does it define the action of "facilitating ideologically based violence."
In its section on key findings related to homegrown terrorism, the measure gives lip-service to constitutional rights, but also singles out the Internet and its open market for the flow of ideas and information as part of the problem. According to the measure, "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
The unspoken threat implied by that passage is that the government might have to clamp down on free speech online. "At base," wrote retired Col. Dan Smith in Counterpunch, "Harman's proposal seems to be a direct attack on First Amendment rights."
Bill Status:
H.R. 1955 passed the House by a landslide vote of 404-6 on October 23, 2007 (Roll Call Vote 993). The bill has been received by the Senate and was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The John Birch Society opposes the passage of vaguely worded legislation that could lead federal agencies to arbitrarily define some modes of thought as one or more varieties of "extremist belief systems." In the 18th Century, the British government of King George III certainly believed as much about the manner of thought adopted by America's Founding Fathers. The John Birch Society believes the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act will have a substantial chilling effect on both free speech and thought and that the Senate should reject the measure.
Recommended Action:
1) Contact your senators using the alert below. Ask them to oppose the passage of H.R. 1955.
2) E-mail this link to others in your sphere of influence, ask them to voice their opposition to H.R. 1955 as well.
taking action:
http://www.capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=10528846
How many more of our freedoms and liberties do we have to lose before people wake up and smell the coffee? Our government has shredded the constitution (it doesn't mean it is gone, it only means that people have been dumbed down for so long they already think that the government is there to take care of them.
Well, its not. The government is there to make you as miserable as they possibly can. Our economy is near to collapse now. Jim Rogers reports this.
You can see it everywhere you go. The high gas prices, which affects everything else. Your food, your clothing, ect. If we don't take control of our country, right now, and I do mean NOW, we are going to be in problems the likes of the country has never seen.
Our right to bear arms is the next measure. The constitution strictly forbids that government infringes on that right. The forefathers protected us well, but if we do not protect our constitution, you might as well get prepared to live under a dictatorship government because that is exactly what they are trying to do.
Government was created by the people, to protect the citizens and their rights. And that is the ONLY thing they are supposed to do. They do not do this. If you don't watch them and let them do what they want, your freedoms and rights will be gone, they are already doing this. Taking away your rights and liberties. We cannot let this happen. If you don't be careful and put the correct leaders in the white house, they will be only too eager to relieve you of your burdens of freedom.
You only need to look at Pakistan today to see where we are heading. There will be chaos like the people have never seen before. UTube is a communication tool. They will try to take that too. It is not what is right in front of you that you need to hear. What you think you hear is not what is. You must research on these politicians, on the war, on our economy, on everything you can think of.
Look around you. Gas prices, high prices at stores, labels they give things to make it seem that something is bad when it only is a step to take yet more of your liberties and rights.
Google Ron Paul. Google Michael Badnarik. Look at candidates running for the presidency who are telling you what the government is doing. Ones who are honest about it. Check their voting records and research their backgrounds. We have only the one man who truly stands for what "We the People" are feeling and saying. That is Ron Paul.
The media is not giving him the attention because he stands and fights for US. He is the ONLY republican who voted against the war, higher taxes, and many other things. Watch his videos. The only time he is mentioned on the tv is when he raises significant amounts of money (he just raised 4.2 million) or makes history (did that too)
You all need to really know what is happening to you and your lives. The government is not here to make you safer. How are we safer when our borders are wide open? No military here to protect us on our shores and borders should we be attacked. This is not a pretty picture. But then government is not roses.
We don't get to vote or decide how the courts intepret the laws that get passed, that we also did not get to vote on.
So exactly what is it we have control over?
Often politicians are multiple choice, and laws are yes or no. It really should be the other way around, we chose from multiple choices the law, that we believe will best address the issue at hand, and for politicians it should be a yes or no, whether you can even hold the office or be allowed to run, before you even get the chance to screw things up.
It is our very lack of freedom, free communication and democracy that has gotten us here. If the media was not controlled by a rich few. If our education system was actually funded. If we were allowed to be a part of the legal and political process at every step by default, we could do something. But what can we really do, we are locked out of the political process. We are locked out of the mainstream media. The Internet is all we have, and we are in danger of losing it too.
It is written that when our government fails its people, it is our obligation to revolt! But our government and the media will quickly act to ensure any revolting behavior is seen as cultist, extremest, radical, terrorist behavior. We have already seen it happen several times. The expanse of their power to lie, confuse facts and coverup the truth can be seen with even novice examination of 9-11 videos, its the worst lie yet.
In addition to writting your congressman about not supporting this new 'Homegrown Freedom Prevention Act', write them and the FCC to NOT sell our airwaves to another corperate entity, free our communication, it is the only non-violent way to begin solving this problem!!!
Otherwise we'll be roasting marshmellows over the ashes of America, as it tears itself apart, trying to get the corrupt, diseased politics and agendas out of it's system.
As sad as the actual shoot out may be, the ignorance of so many pointing fingers at YouTube makes me just as sick to my stomach.
In fact, it's due to the blatant ignorance that allows such thought which also assisted the shooter... in fact... probably more-so than YouTube did! (* SMIRK *)
Walt
Don't kill the messenger, only the sender, if them.
It is about time to realize that the blame usually lies on the shoulders of the person who killed, the family of the person who killed (for not realizing that he was contemplating this) and to some degree when it is a high-school teenager, the people who harassed him, because that is usually what makes him go out and kill.
HELLO, 1st amendment?!?!? NO ONE was supposed to ever control it in the first place!!!!!! Now you want to complain, because YouTube (and the Internet in general) is the last forum of free speech, better cut that out now!!!
OH, We can't have freedom of expression, or let basic rights get in the way of our politcal agendas, better knock them down now.....
Whatever stuff someone puts on their website or posts on YouTube, has nothing to do with the crime, regardless how offensive, radical, or disturbing it might be. Even a video of a crime is not the crime itself, but merely evidence of it. If I post a video of someone shoplifting, am I now guilty of shoplifting? If someone has violent or offensive material on their site, should they immediately be subject to investigation? Detained, questioned, and survielled?
Crimes are typically actions whereas electrons, bits, numbers, words, pictures, videos and information which are NOT crimes.
Quit trying to point the finger at everyone, other than the criminal responsible. Quit trying to blame society for an individuals criminal actions. What you are doing is even more criminal, because you're threatening freedom of speech for everyone, to even sugguest that we begin this thought police, or begin blaming the medium for the message.
Better outlaw air because I am offended by the words I hear, better outlaw light, because I am offended by the things I see. Better outlaw my freedom, because I am too afraid to live in a free world!
This is the result of your pathetic cries!!!!
What happened to home of the brave???
Oh thats right, they live on the reservation now, in poverty!
In addition, YouTube is not a government entity, and is therefore not subject to the 1st A.
(Support the 2ndA. Without it, the rest are merely suggestions.)
Do you still think this free information exchange would still take place? People like this would have you insert a credit card into your computer and send 1.00 every time you visited any website to pay for excessive monitoring.
If I gave away bundles of rope to the public should I monitor that the people getting the free rope use it for such purposes as building a tree swing or pulling a stuck car. You know they could use it to strangle someone too. Am I responsible because I didn't check back on usage of free rope? Should I spy on them and take snapshots to confirm the true usage of the free product?
Often this requires censoring truth so that people aren't offended, or deliberately stating lies that make people feel important and equal.
Media exists to make money, not provide information or truth. Media is an entertainment business, not an educational facility.
If you want truth, go elsewhere. Media will give you only the lies approved of by authorities who reap profit by controlling the ideas society is permitted to discuss and creating the desirable public opinion on all topics.
- Society Blames Others For Its Illness
- by Truth Speaker November 9, 2007 12:08 PM PST
- Our modern society of shared denial fears the truth and so we suppress it, which is why school shootings get responses of outrage and disbelief. Don't let the propaganda fool you. We are all disconnected from any context but our own selves, and so focused on our wealth and status that we're oblivious to the world, or the intangible values of life which our materialistic society denies. The only disbelief here is the shock of being caught in a daydream that we pretended was reality, and this is why we have such outrage against this school shooter, who in a healthier time might be known as a hero for his extermination of false authoritarians, weak people and other stooges of human delusion.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Different times
- by Phillep_H November 9, 2007 1:40 PM PST
- In "healthier times" he would have been cut down by one of the teachers or students, if he was stupid enough to try something.
- Like this
-
- Individual blames society for individuals
- by Suicrat November 11, 2007 11:27 AM PST
- So in a society in which humans were realistic, morally healthy, and socially aware, we'd celebrate our school-shooters? I doubt that's what you mean, but please tell me, what could be intangible but also be valuable? I'm dying to know.
- Like this
-
(26 Comments)Reading some of the old journals reprinted by historical societies has been pretty enlightening, and entertaining.
You speak as though anyone who is a victim of a school shooting is somehow complicit in the "authoritarians'" construction of human delusion. How do you know that this sturmgeist dude wasn't totally insane, and was shooting innocent victims?