YouTube is one of the Internet’s greatest cooperative canvasses of expression. But there are those that feel like each person’s right to individual expression, whether that be voiced in a video, song or comment, should be limited to protect those who, for lack of a better explanation, must be incapable of coming into contact with others without having their own personal sensitivities offended.

Matthew Lasar of Ars Technica writes that the Parents Television Council is offended by the comments written by YouTube users, specifically comments that are of a sexual nature. A report, The “New” Tube: A Content Analysis of YouTube—the Most Popular Online Video Destination, purports that many YouTube comments can be of a sexual nature that lead readers, by way of hyperlink, to gross sexual images or videos.

Lasar notes that, although Council cannot really have a direct impact on YouTube, it could engage in some sort of moral campaign against the hugely popular social video site. Though I doubt YouTube users would really respond to such a moral crusade, I have a much larger problem with such a notion as a person who enjoys individual liberties and freedoms within the United States.

Most decency groups offend me to my core. Perhaps my admiration for the core principles expressed in the United States’ various originating documents will never allow me to share some of the perspectives expressed by those who participate in many decency groups.

Because in execution, the claim of decency groups is that each person in society inherently has a right to restrict the expressions of others so that their personal conceptions of right and wrong are not infringed upon in any way, is it not? How is such an argument reasonable?

It would seem that forcing one’s own belief that others shouldn’t be able to express themselves as they like is itself an expression that, by this rationale, could be suppressed. If we are to violate the premise that all people are equal and share an equal share in certain unalienable rights, especially freedom of expression, by allowing decency groups to have their way, then let me be the first chartering member of the decency group against the indecency of decency groups.

Unfair or ridiculous? No more than suggesting that a few people who are afraid of having their personal values challenged have a right to force their twisted beliefs on everyone else. Quite a few dark tragedies in the history of the world have occurred as a result of this very idea.

Perhaps censoring the comments of YouTube users doesn’t seem like quite the mind crime I’ve suggested it to be in this post. But even a single court ruling that grants decency groups their desires could establish a dangerous precedent that would be hard to erase, and might certainly lead to larger travesties. If I have any part of it, I want to be known as one who combated it, not sat idly by.

Related:

Entry was posted on Monday, December 22nd, 2008 at 6:05 am under Opinion, YouTube.

Read more entries by Triston McIntyre.
Stumble It!