SoylentNews

YouTube Removes Around 30 "Violent" Music Videos in Response to UK Police Requests

posted by martyb on Sunday June 03 2018, @12:51AM   
from the triggered dept.

takyon writes:

YouTube deletes half of 'violent' music videos

YouTube says it has deleted more than half of the "violent" music videos that the country's most senior police officer asked it to take down. More than 30 clips have been removed so far.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick has blamed some videos for fuelling a surge in murders and violent crime in London - and singled out drill music. She asked YouTube to delete content which glamorises violence.

Drill originated in Chicago. Its biggest breakout star is arguably Chief Keef, famous for his 2012 track I Don't Like.

[...] In the past two years police have asked YouTube to take down between 50 and 60 music videos, because they were deemed to incite violence. The video-sharing site has now removed more than 30 of them.

"The gangs try to outrival each other with the filming and content - what looks like a music video can actually contain explicit language with gangs threatening each other," the Metropolitan Police's Mike West said.

That's that shit I don't like.

Drill music.

Also at Rolling Stone and Pitchfork.

Related: Spotify Removes Two Artists From Playlists Due to "Hate Content and Hateful Conduct"

---

Original Submission

• Re:Not censorship but a response to an offence Re:Not censorship but a response to an offence (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:37AM (5 children)

  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:37AM (#687981)

  What? Even if it was a response to an offence, how in the fuck would that make it "not censorship"? It would still be censorship.

  Also, I don't know how they do it, but the UK manages to be worse than the US when it comes to freedom of speech.

  'Incitement to commit an offence'

  What specific, credible threats were being made? What are the standards here?

  Parent

• What are the standards here? (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 03 2018, @02:01PM

  by janrinok (52) on Sunday June 03 2018, @02:01PM (#688012) Journal

  British citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[1] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening or abusive words or behaviour intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[2][3][4] sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature),[5][6][7] incitement,[8] incitement to racial hatred,[9] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[8][10][11] glorifying terrorism,[12][13] collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[14][15] treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch,[16][17][18][19][20] sedition,[17] obscenity,[21] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[22] defamation,[23] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[24][25] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[25] time, manner, and place restrictions,[26] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org]

  Parent

• What are the standards here? Part 2 What are the standards here? Part 2 (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 03 2018, @02:21PM (3 children)

  by janrinok (52) on Sunday June 03 2018, @02:21PM (#688022) Journal

  The Communications Act 2003 outlaws the act of sending "by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.

  In 2017, 19-year old Croxteth resident Chelsea Russell quoted a line from Snap Dogg's song "I'm Trippin'" on her Instagram page. The line, which read "Kill a snitch nigga, rob a rich nigga", was copied from a friend's page as part of a tribute to Frankie Murphy who was killed in a car accident at age 13.[169][170] Hate crime investigators were alerted to the presence of the slur and charged Russell with "sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network". Defence lawyer Carole Clarke stated that she received a request from one of the arresting officers that the word "nigga", the subject of the trial, not be used in court.[171] In April 2018, District Judge Jack McGarva found Russell guilty and delivered a sentence which included a £585 fine, a curfew and an ankle monitoring bracelet

  .

  Now, why did you think that UK citizens have the same right to Freedom of Speech than any other nation? If you are British and don't like it, write to your MP. If you are not British, then the UK can do whatever it wants without your approval. By all means comment here, but don't confuse your rights with those of someone in a different country.

  Parent

  • Re:What are the standards here? Part 2 Re:What are the standards here? Part 2 (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:18PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:18PM (#688129)

    The Communications Act 2003 outlaws the act of sending "by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.

    Well, the UK is an authoritarian abomination of a country, so this comes as no surprise.

    If you are British and don't like it, write to your MP. If you are not British, then the UK can do whatever it wants without your approval.

    Sorry, but the mere fact that I was born on a different patch of dirt as some other people does not mean I won't feel empathy for them when their human rights (which may or may not be recognized by a specific government) are being violated. That's such a right-wing idea.

    I have no issues when foreigners chastise the US government for committing war crimes, conducting mass surveillance on the populace, or doing any number of other heinous things. In fact, when they do, I agree with them because I am not a tribalist.

    By all means comment here, but don't confuse your rights with those of someone in a different country.

    I don't, which is why I said the UK is worse than the US when it comes to freedom of speech.

    Parent

    • Re:What are the standards here? Part 2 Re:What are the standards here? Part 2 (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday June 04 2018, @06:52AM (1 child)

      by janrinok (52) on Monday June 04 2018, @06:52AM (#688257) Journal

      UK is worse than the US when it comes to freedom of speech.

      Which is why I have tried to educate you to correct your erroneous belief that the UK has a law covering freedom of speech. It hasn't. I agree with your comments, I'm not arguing against them.

      Parent

      • Re:What are the standards here? Part 2 (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @08:42AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2018, @08:42AM (#689230)

        Which is why I have tried to educate you to correct your erroneous belief that the UK has a law covering freedom of speech.

        You're mistaken about my beliefs. Freedom of speech is a concept, not just "a law". On the principle of freedom of speech, the UK is worse than the US.

        Parent