During a protest in Syria in April, a 13-year old boy, Hamza Ali al-Khateeb was separated from his parents. The people were protesting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, who has not been shy about violence against peaceful protesters.
The whereabouts of Hamza were unknown for more than a month, then his mutilated and tortured corpse was returned to his parents. He had been beaten, burned, whipped with cables, shot in the arms and castrated. His family made a video of his injuries, the camera slowly panning across his body while the narrator describes his wounds, according to various media sources. This video was posted on YouTube and has galvanized protests in Syria and beyond, making the young boy a martyr and his family heroes, although his father has since been arrested.
You Tube took down the video, but then reinstated it after review. According to the Nation,
“YouTube, which is owned by Google, has company guidelines banning shocking or graphic content. “We make exceptions,” the spokesperson added, “for videos that have a clear educational, documentary, scientific or artistic value.”’
Reading about what happened to this young boy is horrifying enough, I have no wish to watch the video. But I am lucky enough to live in a country where I won’t be tortured for peaceful protest. Probably. With this video being up on YouTube, it is viewable by anyone with an Internet connection, including, of course kids. Even boingboing, known for being a very liberal blog, states on their site “it is extremely disturbing and not appropriate for viewing by children.” What do you think? Was YouTube right to reinstate the video? Or should the description be enough? Does the cultural significance of the reaction to the horrifying way in which Hamza was killed make it ok to be viewed by minors, in a library?
Boingboing
The Jerusalem Post
The New York Times
No, I do not believe the video should be viewed by minors.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that such incidents highlight the power of the Internet to shed light on activities that would normally not get attention, and in so doing, incite people to demand that such atrocities never happen again. I also don't believe that merely describing the wounds would be nearly as effective.
The flip side is that these same technologies can be used to spread misinformation and lies, though I do believe that the truth will eventually get out.