Have people forgotten the difference between happy-slapping and assault?! There is a drastic difference, one that the media just glosses right over. Some poor guy being beaten to death and filmed on a mobile is being murdered; not happy-slapped.

Michael, Newcastle,

Can you please spare a thought for the victims - who's abuse is watched and even rated with stars by millions of poeple around the world - before offering such comments

TV, Preston,

This is a regressive and amoral proposal that seems to be motivated by the belief that ISPs have money, and will respond to pressure. Violence is wrong and harmful, manslaughter is a crime. That is where law and policy are focussed, and the focus should say there.

Gordon Rae, Totnes, Devon

Ooh, it's public! Big, hairy deal. You can also sell T-shirts that say stuff on them. Obviously, what you wear in public is public, but again, has no "quality" restrictions. So, it seems that being public or private has nothing to do with whether things are sued.

If, however, YouTube were not a private company (i.e. owned by the state), then there would be a precedent for censorship. However, YouTube is private and, no matter its pricing, cannot be taken to task for its content. I cite the fact that there are many sites which actually condone violence etc, none of which are sued for content.

Eric, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Because the content of social networking sites is public.

C Spearing, London,

It is misconceived to force those who host media of communication actively to involve themselves in the content: it is wholly improper to prohibit by law the operation of entirely content-neutral services, which are capable of being far more efficient than services that have to monitor each and every unit of content out of many millions.

If telephone companies are not required to prevent people using telephones maliciously, and the Post Office is not required to intercept each letter to make sure that it is not an item of hate mail, then why on earth should those who host video sharing sites be forced to expend their own resources to police users' content?

James E. Petts, Burnham, England