Editor's Note: Click here to read a dissenting opinion.
The felony charges eight Lakeland, Fla., teens face after videotaping the brutal beating of a 16-year-old girl and posting the recording online should cause YouTube and its users to reevaluate the responsibilities that come with publication.
YouTube cannot continue to turn a blind eye and profit off of children committing felonies. Undeniably, the teens and their parents are at fault here – first, for the beating and second, for violating their contract with YouTube. Any user who posts content to that Web site must agree to its User Agreement and Community Guidelines: “Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it.”
That’s hardly legalese, but a translation may still be in order: Listen kids—and we want to say this in a way that the YouTube generation will understand–willfully violating YouTube content rules is the equivalent of someone coming into your room and defecating on the floor.
Indeed, YouTube and its owner Google prohibit individuals incapable of entering into a binding contract from using their services. It's clear that both are wary of what can happen when you let too many children play in your house unsupervised.
According to YouTube’s community guidelines, the Web site reviews videos that may violate that agreement once a user flags it as inappropriate. But YouTube is remiss to place on its users, many of whom are minors, the responsibility of upholding its rules.
YouTube must be more proactive in identifying and eliminating content that breaches its standards.
Once the Lakeland beating video became the stuff of national lure, YouTube removed it. But what about the dozens of other videos showcasing what appear to be underage felonies that remain on YouTube?
YouTube grants users the privilege of engaging in an almost unfettered exchange of news, information and ideas which has contributed to the national dialogue and political discourse. It is a marketplace of ideas of which the founding fathers would be proud. Maintaining this is possible without mandating prior approval (or censorship) of videos before their publication on YouTube.
[W]hat about the dozens of other videos showcasing what appear to be underage felonies that remain on YouTube?But when identifying published videos that violate its standards is as simple as typing “girl fights” into the YouTube search engine, the company cannot plead ignorance. It should not be held harmless for what the world sees on its pages. In addition, it is better for YouTube and other Web sites to police themselves if only to preempt any unwelcome attempt by government to do so.
YouTube cannot continue to turn a blind eye and profit off of children committing felonies. YouTube must be a better corporate parent for the same reason parents should be better parents; if not for their own sake, then for the sake of the kids.
Executive Editor Justin Hemlepp, CONCURRING in part, DISSENTING in part:
While I agree that the teens responsible for the beating—and their parents—have quite a bit of explaining to do, I cannot join in the conclusions that YouTube should be held responsible for the actions of third parties and that corporations have a responsibility to raise America’s children.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes sites like Google (and TheSequitur.com) from liability for the postings of third parties to their Web sites. The purpose of this immunity is to encourage sites to do exactly the policing the Board encourages. Indeed, without section 230 not only would the policing be impossible—so too would YouTube. Without 230, the risk of liability would be too high for a site like YouTube to succeed.
Additionally, parents are supposed to raise their children. Perhaps it is because many have delegated that task to “corporate parents” that we see teenagers beating their peers on the Internet. [YouTube, CNET]Asst. Managing Editor Dwayne Robinson abstains from all staff editorials.
Conclusions 
