There are loads of ‘true crime’ channels on You Tube, some better than others and some which concentrate on particular types of crimes or crimes in general. Now true crime stuff isn’t everybody’s cup of tea, some people like them and some don’t but each to their own I say. If you like these channels then watch them, if you don’t then don’t.
It is the nature of the true crime story beast that when covering these stories there should be some background information to the story and in particular, especially if you are trying to give as full an account as possible, the author will need to talk about the life of the offender prior to the crime. Because, as is so often the case, violent criminals and especially those who have been sentenced to death in the United States, have had turbulent and sometimes abusive upbringings, it is almost impossible not to tell the whole story of a particular criminal or crime without giving detail of the background of the offender.
Some of these criminals have truly horrific backgrounds that encompass anything and everything from childhood abuse, domestic abuse, through familial suicides and substance misuse. Now of course, few would say that these monsters from these criminals past would excuse their crimes but they often have a very strong bearing on them. It would be difficult to tell the story of some of these appalling people without going into some detail about how they ended up the way they did and that means talking about the abusive upbringings that they may have had.
This brings me to the moment when I need to speak about a truly bizarre act of censorship by You Tube and a classic example of where black and white rules should not apply but instead there should be some recognition that there are grey areas when it comes to moderation. The channel that is being subjected to censorship via demonitisation is one called Death Row Executions run by a young lady by the name of Air. Her channel covers cases, not just from the USA but also some famous British cases such as Timothy Evans and Ruth Ellis as well as cases from elsewhere.
What has happened is that You Tube have demonitised her channel on the grounds that she speaks of domestic and other abuse as well as suicide. However, she is not encouraging such behaviour nor speaking well of it. All she is doing is recounting how the abuse that a criminal suffered in their earlier lives may have had a bearing on the crime for which they were sentenced to death.
This is how Air described what had happened to her on her channel’s community page:
My past few videos have been demonetized because they say I focus on domestic abuse, child abuse, physical abuse and or suicide. I of course beg to differ and don’t think it is the main focus.
Of course the abuse is not the main focus of her videos, the main focus of her videos are the crimes that were committed and the trials. It would be difficult to cover the stories that she does without mentioning the lifestyles that helped to create the criminals.
Air added:
Also stories in which I talk about their troubled childhood I will save for Patreon and Yt Members and create a separate story on YT that is a bit more pg. Hopefully then they will not put restrictions on my videos or marks. I am unable to even have a merch side to my YT because of those issues.
I find this sort of censorship by You Tube difficult to not just understand but also to justify. It’s not like the case of the bleach and turps drinking quack who I featured earlier today who had been banned from You Tube for telling people to drink turps and bleach, something that is without doubt harmful. This case is totally different and one where censorship is completely unjustified. This young lady is being unjustly censored and prevented from covering the stories on You Tube in the detail that they deserve to be told and she can’t support her channel with merchandise because You Tube will not permit it because of the demonetisation issue.
This is truly a case where a hard and fast rule about not encouraging abuse or bad things is being used inappropriately and wrongly. What You Tube is encouraging is the telling of stories with large chunks of relevant information left out in order to appease the You Tube censorship gods. This attitude by You Tube does not bode well for many channels, not just those that cover crime subjects but those that cover 20th century history as to tell the story of some of the more oppressive regimes of that period may sometimes require using historical footage or images that involve the display of emblems that You Tube now ban. Future history, criminology and sociology students who use You Tube or its archive as a resource are going to be baffled about why so much relevant information that should be there is missing in the You Tube memory hole?
I agree that You Tube should not censor information that would benefit the public to understand the true facts around serious issues.
You Tube and other internet services should be banned from actually showing people how to murder/commit suicide/self harm/abuse children/how to make a bomb etc
It really is down to common sense.
The ironic thing is that the public being aware of stuff like how early abuse can end up with the victim committing a serious crime, the sort of thing that people could learn from one of Air’s videos, might just prompt someone to intervene and thereby divert a person away from a path that could end up in either a prison cell for life or the death chamber.
On the whole I agree with you but there are nuances and questions such as if you describe a murder method would it actually impel anyone to murder who would not have murdered before seeing the method? Personally I don’t believe that it would. Look at it this way. There are a lot of people who are interested in the technical, psychlogical and logistical side of crime but who would never ever carry out such a crime themselves. For example: I’m fascinated by alternative history such as what would have happened if the Nazis had been less obsessed with destroying other races and diverting thousands of troops to do so and more focused on winning the war? In that situation could they have beaten the Soviets? However this interest doesn’t give me any desire to goosestep about my kitchen in Jackboots LOL.
Also, as I’ve found out recently whilst researching what professions are most likely to push people into bad places and self destruction for a future possible culture article (seems to be acting, politics and music so far BTW), suicides in these groups happened way before the internet. If someone is hell bent on self destruction it may well be that all that will be influenced would be the method. There have been sites that have encouraged self destruction but they are nothing to do with platforms like YT and are often in hard to reach places online. Definitely agree with you on the subject of child abuse there’s no question that this needs to be prohibited and punished. As for the final one where is the line drawn? Is it drawn at something that a terrorist group would put out, which most people would say yes, this crosses the line, or does it get pushed into areas where it’s merely a historian of weapons describing how a historical mine worked, which many would say is OK. As you say it is all down to common sense but the AI that Soc Media platforms use is immune to such a thing. Sometimes the censorship becomes laughable as in a recent video where a historian was illustrating a battlefield in WWII and could not use the swastika flag to indicate German positions because of YouTube rules. Instead he made a flag of red with a white circle in the middle and used a ‘censored by you tube’ graphic in place of the offending emblem for his battlefield flags image.
I think that the balance should always be on freedom of speech and that the touchstone rule should be: Is it a credible and immediate threat? Someone could online threaten to punch me on the nose but it’s not really a credible threat unless they turn up outside my house and shout the threat then because turning up in person gives more credibility and also more immediacy to the threat. Going back to the subject of Air’s videos the question should be this: Would her videos encourage people to abuse others or self destruct or commit heinous crimes? The answer I find most compelling is ‘no’. Her videos are a warning of what can happen when people go bad because of bad experiences. Because of that I see no earthly reason why her stuff should be censored.
I agree with you FH. You must forgive my original short reply as I was doing other things when I wrote it.
Yes, if it educates others about background matters leading up to crime etc then that is a good thing to learn about and should be shown.
It is very interesting how many people I have come across these recent years who have shared their stories with me about how they were abused ( mainly although not always ) in childhood which seemed to have caused them to turn to drink/drugs and commit crimes. People should be educated about this.
Before you say anything I am aware that not all people who commit crimes or murder are abused. I had the misfortune to know Joanna Dennehy and she appeared to have a very loving childhood. It seemed it was her own decision to rebel and murder people. It is an attempt to gain power over people in any form which makes some people murder or commit crimes. So I suppose sometimes something happens in the brain that changes at any age for people to take a different path.
I agree that although most people will never turn to crime/murder if they see the methods used to commit these acts, yet there are still some hero worshippers who will attempt to use the same methods for their undeniable lust for power.
This is why I believe anything exposed to the public should be carefully monitored although not completely denied.
Don’t worry about the brevity of the reply,it’s not an issue for me at least. The Dennehy case is one of those that are the exception to the pathway of bad childhood to crime. She seems as you say to have made her own decision to be bad.
You will always get some who will hero worship bad people, witness those who hero worshiped Raoul Moat for example. The problem with blanket denials of information because of the possibility that a few bad people will be inspired by it is somewhat akin to banning steaks because a baby would choke on it.
In a way society is incredibly lucky that those who worship Hitler for example in the modern world are also mostly incompetent idiots.
“True Crime” docus – no thanks, sob stories by another name
This is bizarre. Lefties, BBC, C4, The Guardian etc are forever using horrific backgrounds that encompass anything and everything from childhood abuse, domestic abuse, through familial suicides and substance misuse as a reason these monsters past should excuse their crimes. They happily give air time to anyone who espouses this view.
I’d have thought this was ‘right on’ for Google.
Is Air saying their past does not excuse their crime? It doesn’t and shouldn’t, with one exception: crime/revenge against their abuser should be mitigating factor
A UK soap has been exploring this, iirc the C4 one (Hollyfield?)
Fair enough, not everyone is into these things.
It is indeed bizarre, especially as the MSM run these stories as well.
What’s interesting is that Air does not use past backgrounds as excuses, which is as you say what the UK Left does a lot. She does ask pertinent questions about whether background was a contributory factor but she concentrates on the crimes that led the criminal to their sentence.
I agree that this is little different from issues that are explored in UK soaps.