It is preposterous for YouTube to be held responsible for what other people upload to their website - especially since the site clearly states its rules for the type of material that is allowed. Once the video was reported, it was summarily removed from the website - it should therefore be forgotten as far as YouTube is concerned. In this day & age we cannot always shield everyone from viewing violent behavior. One should feel at least a bit gratified that it was removed at all. While it is a tragedy what the woman in the video was subjected to, it is nonetheless irrelevant to the debate about whether or not the site should be shut down. The real issue is the fact that every time truth about the apparent violent nature of many humans is witnessed by anyone, the first thing people/parents do is eliminate it, thereby perpetuating further ignorance and destroying any chance of enlightening people/children as to what is happening in their world, and how to change it for the better.

Keegan, Janesville, WI

You Tube is responsible for all content on the You Tube site, the same as any other site. The source of the content and how it is uploaded to the site is irrelevant. They develop, host , own, and profit from it. If the content itself breaks any applicable law, then You Tube is most certainly culpable. They do not get a free pass because You Tube is on the Internet. Napster already tried that.

matt, warrington,

These incidents are usually used to call for Internet Censorship. Unfortunately it's not unfeasible to censor the Internet, it's just going to totally ruin it. YouTube would nolonger be a portal to freedom but just another branch of Robert Maxwell.

If Internet censorship is the plan then the police will do all they can to make sure they don't prosecute anyone for this crime. The video evidence which got YouTube into trouble will not be enough to get the perpetrators into trouble. The authorities will be wanting more of this sort of thing, so they can shut these sites down.

Wayland, Braintree, UK

Some people are saying if YouTube can't 100% moderate all content before it goes up then it should be shut down. Of course there will be another YouTube clone but the same rule would apply. The same applies basically to the whole Internet. Except who are the censors and who are the content creators? Who censors the censors? The idea of censoring the whole Internet looks to be a popular idea. You maybe interested to know that YouTube contains hundreds of videos of allied soldiers torturing dogs and handgrenading shepards etc etc. If these get censored then what happens to the truth of this? Go on bury your head and not see any bad stuff.

Wayland Sothcott, Braintree, UK

But if the sex had been willing, then she would be charged with child molestation... Such a skinny, shaky line we walk with our laws that can destroy someone's life.

Mike, Michigan, USA

leon, did the mother realise what had happened to her before she saw the clip in youtube? and why hadn't she gone straight to the police? was it only the fact that the incident became public that prompted her?

jem, london, uk

If feel I must correct some commentors - Youtube is moderated.

You can visit sites on the internet showing far worse and to say that they must moderate content in the way described by some people here is akin to allowing a chalk-board to be used to post messages and then getting upset when people draw rude pictures on it after you gave them the chalk.

The internet is that chalk board and we all have chalk given to us by companies the world over.

The real issue here is that a violent sex crime happened and it was videoed, supossedly for the gratification of the people who comitted the crime.

I would suggest that as Youtube promptly took down the video once they became aware that they did their bit.

The people who put it up there should be locked up for life as they clearly do not have value for it.

If you want to remove access to the internet for some people then there needs to be a working solution that retains access for the lawfully minded.

Robert McGregor, Reading, UK

Am I missing something here? I think this whole situation is tragic - the fact that KIDS the age of 14 and 16 are raping a mother of two young children is horrible - where are their parents? But equally - why was a mother of two young children giving champagne to 14 and 16 year olds? She certainly did not deserve this in any way whatsoever - it's a shame we live in a world where humans do this to one another - but at some point we have to start taking responsibility for our actions and our children rather than blaming websites.

I hope the perpetrators are prosecuted and the victim and her family can put this horrible incident behind them.

A, London,

Jay London - "YouTube can't be held responsible for what its users post, nor could it be expected to censor them itself".

And why not, publishers are held responsible for any defamatory articles they print or broadcast even if the content was authored by a third party. To publish without reviewing the content is negligent in the extreme and can never be condoned.

You are dangerously arguing for yet another instance where so called "rights" would override responsibility, a non-sensical argument that has given us feral child criminals who are untouchable, and known terrorists cannot be deported among a myriad of other social problems.

Glenn, Aberdare, Wales

I'm reading the times web-site, and people are talking about rape pornography as if it were eastenders.

Are we also going to let child pornography web-sites host uploaded material? It is exactly the same thing.

Gregory, Belfast, Ireland

TO those who wonder why she waited so long to report the rape, possibly it was the usual reason with date rape drugs; she could not remember what happened.

The site is not to blame for this it is the 3 men who should be tried as adults and serve a long time in prison.

Joe, Edinburgh, Scotland

i don't BLAME youtube. i blame the people who committed the acts.
but youtube has some liability, in that they were the public forum in which this woman's pain and suffering were aired. they should pay her therepy...

i really really hope she is ok

denelian, Columbus, USA

10 hours of content a minute is a ratio of 600:1. At four shifts of 6 mindnumbing hours, that would require a staff of 2,400 to preview each video before it is allowed onto YouTube.

I find it amazing everyone seems so disgusted at YouTube, and nobody is passing comment on the rapists. They, after all, committed the crime.

David, Ghent, Belgium

Though nothing can be used to justify the behaviour of these 3 little monster, who in all likelyhood will be given pathetically little in terms of sentence by the british "justice system". Why was this foolish woman giving alcohol to minors?

Callum Roxburgh, Jakarta, Indonesia

For those who want to police the internet who will decide the rules and what is allowed and what is not. Shall we ban gays from having a voice on the web or a political party we don't agree with.

What they did was wrong but I'm also confused the rape happened in November and the film upload soon after and then taken down but she only went to the police last month but could to to a reporter quicker.

the next film they should make is when they are sentenced to many years in prison and that should be on youtube

please note i have nothing against gays

Knight, aberdeen, UK

This says it all -
'What a ridiculous debate, someone gets drugged and repeatedly raped and people are turning on a website which might eventually help to prosecute the criminals instead of actually condemning such a deplorable and despicable act.

Phil, Lancaster, '

Doug, Sydney, Australia

I hope the footage was passed to the Police by YouTube as well as soure IP details etc of the uploader.

Mark, london, UK

As usual a broadcaster makes weak excuses about control over content."We can't check everything" is a pathetic excuse.
The site exists so people can "broadcast themselves" This alone should send out alarm signals....we'll only remove it if you "flag it up..." seems to me a denial of responsibility and accountability
The answer is simple....employ moderators to check content BEFORE allowing it to be broadcast. Otherwise, fine heavily.

Peter S.Lewis, Bidford-on-Avon, UK

What a ridiculous debate, someone gets drugged and repeatedly raped and people are turning on a website which might eventually help to prosecute the criminals instead of actually condemning such a deplorable and despicable act.

Phil, Lancaster,

"If it upsets you, then don't watch it. It's that simple."

Djanki Amoroli of Dudley should be disgusted with himself. A young mother being gang-raped while her two young children stand by, distressed, is not something you choose to watch, or not watch, according to whether the mood takes you. Do you also condone paedophile rapists with the same 'liberal' perspective? This kind of attitude is scraping the bottom of the barrel of humanity. Or is it you that's just 'that simple'?

,

Karen S, London,

Youtube contains some of the most valuable and diverse content on the internet and is a democratic, international library, free for (most of) the world to use. For those who are interested to look for it, youtube contains, admittedly amongst a lot of trash, some of the most interesting art, music, documentary, and historic film which exists. It is a great eductional resource. The criminals here are the scum who perpetrated this heinous crime and posted it. Which particular website they used is irrelevant.

Alex, Kristiansand, Norway

Youtube failed to act when contacted by the woman & only removed the clip after a newspaper contacted them. That is NOT a fast reaction.
Some better policing system needs to be put in place by youtube, if only to increase it's reaction time. Maybe they cannot be expected to monitor all uploads, but any complaint should bring a moderator online, instantly, not hours or days later.
As for those of you that keep using China as your whipping post. China has got youtube under the name "youku". If you can read Kanji go & have a look. Though I wonder how many posters here have even looked at youtube.
If you believe youtube to be useless (& I do) then stay away from it, but remember too that there are a very, very large number of people who do value it.
It's loss may not amount to much, I agree, but the same could be said about anything, chocolate, tea, gin, vodka, The Times?
None of these things are NEEDED, & they are all used to make money.
So what?

JCMendoza, Madrid, Spain

Absolutely irresponsible is what the people at You Tube are for allowing this sort of thing to be put out to the world. Saying that they haven't got the time or resources is no excuse. If they cannot monitor it properly they should not allow it to be go out to the public, end of story. Someone else said that you shouldn't blame the messenger. By having a system where unchecked content may be broadcast, You Tube have chosen to live with the risk of this happening, the result is clear to see. By their obvious lack of care, and lack of vigilance, they have chosen to be the messenger. Having a system of fixing problems some time after they happen, if someone else alerts you to it is a very poor practice indeed. However I'm sure the people in charge will still be paid very well for what they do. Maybe some people will pray with me that the people hurt here will receive Christ's healing and peace.

David Falconer, Wyong, Australia

The best way to control this is to use the video to prosecute the criminals and all the other participants. The person taking the video and posting it is a participant in a criminal act. The person who supplied the drug is also a guilty participant and should go to jail. All of these people should go to jail. They should be tried as adults too. The young boys should have a good time in jail being on the receiving end without benefit of being unconcious.

Edwin S. Fujinaka, Tucson, Arizona

A clip from my film Models which showed erotic glamour images was removed as "pornographic" because of objections from "the YouTube" community" even though it was rated with five stars and showed no explicit content, such as open leg shots. I presume that censorship is draconian on YouTube

Mike Freeman, Amsterdam, Holland

If Youtube cannot police the content 100%, then it should be closed down - simple as. The owners are making huge sums out of the site, so they can afford to spend some of it on preventing this kind of material making it into the public domain.

E J Murray, Kerry, Ireland

In case anyone is in any doubt about this, let me emphasise that it is all about money. if YouTube had to control the content of its site, then somebody would have to pay for that. Nobody is prepared to pay, people think that the internet is free, therefore it is effectively unregulated. It will take more disgusting incidents lilke this before people understand that we cannot allow everything to be posted on the internet, and the cost of control is not zero. Who will pay for the policing?

Martin Baldwin-Edwards, Athens, Greece

YouTube is moderated by users because this is the only way it could possibly be policed. Does anyone have any idea how many person-hours it would take for an employee or whoever to personally watch every second of every one of the uploaded videos? Well, according to the WSJ in August 2006, the total duration of videos viewed by users amounted to 9,305 years (http://tinyurl.com/k43gx).

So in fact the answer is not so simple. YouTube can't be held responsible for what its users post, nor could it be expected to censor them itself. Nobody, especially not the company itself, is condoning date rape, and it's absolutely shocking that some commenters have come to this conclusion. But the fact is that working with the authorities to ascertain the user who posted it is all the company can feasibly do. The fact that it was flagged and taken down after only 600 views to me shows that the system works, not that YouTube is hell-bent on disseminating disgusting acts of violence to the kidz.

Jay, London,

This is not YouTubes fault, it reacts to complaints quickly, but it can't be expected to screen each video. Using China as a comparison is laughable, it doesn't police the internet it censors it. It's quite easy to block obnoxious videos when it has blocked all video sites, as long as numerous other sites such as wikipedia.

james, Birmingham,

What happened to this woman is obviously horrific, but you can't blame YouTube for the crime, and it sounds like they took the film down as soon as they were alerted to the problem. As for it being popular with 6- or 7-year-olds (jayil), parents need to keep a close eye on what their children are looking at on the internet, and I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that YouTube is a site that children should be allowed to roam free on!

kami, Oxford,

The criminals here is not YouTube, both the perpertrators of the rape. They should be prosocuted. If YouTube had failed to act quickly and remove the item, then they should be prosocuted, but it appears that they take their responsibilities seriously and removed the item.
It is not practical to view all items before posting, and anyway if they did and rejected items they would be accused of censorship!
Finally should we punish the entire YouTube community for the actions of a very tiny minority who have committed a serious crime.

Alan Dow, Fleet, UK

Like it or not. It's reality. There are far too many people today going around being offended on other people's behalf. If it upsets you, then don't watch it. It's that simple.

Djanki Amoroli, Dudley,

This site should be closed down. The world managed to exist before its inception and it'll keep going once it has gone. It doesn’t do anyone any good and is used by people with too much time on their hands to infringe copyright on TV shows and movies, and by morons to post footage of themselves doing pointless or boring things. Get a life.

Yvonne, London, UK

The China comment is ridiculous. If you limit some freedoms but not others, who is to say that one of your freedoms might be selected to be curtailed 'just in case'? I personally do not condone the behaviour at all. Punishment is the answer here, not prevention. People and companies should be free until they infringe on someone else's rights. If youtube is free to be as it is, it has to reap the punishments with the rewards. If the punishments are severe enough, it will find its own systemic way of preventing a clip such as this from being posted again.

Rick, Ham,

Not to take blame off of the perpetrators, but this woman opened a bottle of champagne to drink with two 16-year-olds and a 14-year-old. She is not entirely innocent. There is more to this story than meets the eye.

mickey_d, Daytona Beach,

Linda from Fife asks "What intelligent person would want to watch clips from Youtube", which leads me to wonder whether she and other know what kind of material it hosts. It isn't just mobile phone videos from the criminal underclass.

For instance, searching YouTube for "knitting" returns 16,200 videos. 129,000 hits for "gardening". 70,000 for "cooking". 77,400 for "ballet". 45,000 for "music lessons". 18200 for "volunteering". There are categories for "science and technology", "education", "news and politics" and so on.

Of course there is a lot of juvenile nonsense on there, just like the rest of the Internet, just like the rest of popular culture. There is also a lot of value. I wonder how many of those condemning it actually know anything about it beyond what they've read in the newspapers?

Steve, Swindon,

Incredible and shameful in his rush to exonerate youtube that someone in this thread has blamed the woman for being raped and suggested she deserved it. Any way we can prosecute him aswell?

Gemma, London,

A large proportion of material like this could be rejected at the point of upload very easily by title and keyword filtering. Videos have to be searchable to be viewable by more than a handful of people so a clip which is described as a "rape" or "happy slap" could be quarantined for review to check whether it is indeed dangerous or something which can be released (e.g. if "rape" happened to be a typo).

Youtube will never of its own accord implement these measures, however, as it relies on clicks or views for its income. Every clip makes a difference, even if it results in 600 views.

The fact that regulation may cost money and take time should not mean that no attempts are made to prevent dissemination of dangerous content.

Lee, London,

What intelligent person would want to watch clips from Youtube?

Linda, Fife,

People worry about the government violating citizens' privacy. I worry more about teenagers with camera phones following me into an elevator or public bathroom and then posting the photos or video for the whole world to see. It's time to start carrying a can of mace.

Robbie, San Diego, CA,

Matt from Didcot seems to forget that a horrible crime was committed. That it was recorded and posted into YouTube compounds the crime. I don't believe that ouTube are responsible for the act, nor that they can police everything that goes on the site given the very nature of the facility; what disturbs me is that there are people so unconcerned with the Law (not to say, decency)that they are emboldened enough to post their guilt to the world without compunction. There certainly are means to track down the perpetrators and throw the book at them.

The rape is truly vile, and while it may be statisitically irrelevent to all of us, it is a moral issue which Matt from Didcot should recognise.

PB, London, UK

Guy, Oxford,
so they should employ 100 extra staff then, what a wonderfull company you tube would be, bringing in much needed employment.
Arnold Thang,
This is not censorship, its just common sense, in the same way that these comments we leave/read are vetted before they are published. And quite how you make a connection between these comments and school trips is quite beyond comprehension.
It seems we really have some half wits out there doesnt it

Pete, St Albans, England

I'm just wondering why Youtube doesn't go through some kind of vetting process, where before people can post something they need to have their identities, and locations verified. Then, when they do use their account to post a clip like this or of any other criminal activity, the details of the poster can be sent to the relevant authorities who can then deal with it as they see fit.

Surely removing the anonymity of the net would seriously reduce the likelhood of someone posting it up. Sure, it amy not prevent the crime, but it would reduce the areas where these people show it off, and will actually lead to them being punished.

Or of course, youtube could just pass the buck, say it's too hard and deflect the blame. They didn't commit the crime, but they could be in a position to catch the criminals but convieniently don't. But then again, I don't see anyone actually trying to punish or regulate them either, so why would they bother.

Darryl, London,

I find it difficult to understand anyone defending YouTube in any case where video evidence of a crime is posted on a website for 'further thrills'. To those of you who think that posting the rape of this young woman is an act of idiocy, try to put yourself in the shoes of either the victim or her family and imagine the impact that would have! The persons who own YouTube should make it their business to review all 'offerings' before allowing them to be seen by the public. I doubt that they would so readily wash their hands of all blame were it one of their children who was the victim. Lets make this simple for them - review all submitted videos. Any video submitted that shows or appears to show a felony/criminal act should be turned over to the proper authorities without delay! No videos should be accepted without a traceable name and address. Many may claim this as an infringement on the right of free speech - stuff it!

Brendan D, New York, USA

Just a point of fact,

The story first appeared in the South London Press, not the Sun.

The victim had contacted YouTube to ask them to take it down, but they didn't so she contacted her local newspaper.

I interviewed her.

YouTube only took it down when the South London Press got involved and asked for it to be removed.

That is not good enough in my opinion.

Yours,

Leon Watson
Crime Reporter
South London Press

Leon Watson, London,

What YouTube should do - which would be easy to do - would be to forbid the foul language which pervades the site. For me, it ruins it: you can be watching a perfectly pleasant, innocuous clip and then scroll down to see that someone's posted a nasty, foul-mouthed comment.

David Lewin, London,

Given that youtube receives in the region of 100m hits per day, 600 views for one video is statiscally irrelevant. Shocking though the content is it is important to have some perspective on the incident. There are other sites far more worthy of a takedown notice on the web than youtube. As for suggesting that China have got it right, China does not even allow people to post their opinions on newspaper sites. Think about it, what would you rather have, the ability to have your own say or the web wrapped in cotton wool ?

Matt, Didcot,

You Tube should be shut down if they cannot control what is being uploaded onto the site- simple fact.

Hollie, Surrey,

If somebody puts up a video such as that, the computers address they posted from would be stored. Find the postal address, cross reference the owners account and frequent/recent login addresses, mob rule. I'm sure there are plenty of people ready to get rid of the scum from our earth.

Al, Birmingham,

People giving out about You Tube...... what about the little monsters that did this?
Surely peoples rage should be directed at the society that allowed this to happen..........
Do we want to hide the fact that this stuff goes on or to try and prevent it?

Brian, Galway,

let's ban camera phones as well, they allow crimes to be recorded in the first place. Actually, let's ban cars because they can be used for robbery or to kill someone, kitchen knifes, builder's tools, bricks, stones, pipes......... Most every day objects can be used to infict injury so we should ban the sale of them too. We should even tie ourselves up because we can kick and punch. Please let me know if you think of anything else.

Joe, London,

andrew, jane, jayil.... review every clip? close it down? boycott?

I hope no one listens to you. youtube is a glorious vehicle. it requires users to have some sense and it takes action as quickly as is reasonable when this is not the case.

your draconian attitude would kill all the joy in the world on account of a tiny minority who abuse the privilege of choice.

these were sick people who committed a sick act. they should hang. but youtube is not responsible and nor should it be made to be.

jem, london, uk

Let's do some maths here.
10 hours of video PER MINUTE. That is 219000 hours of video per annum.
Assuming a 40 hour working week, and a 50 week working year....that means well over 100 employees just to monitor uploaded content.
Even then they wouldn't catch everything instantly.

They have a practical and effective moderation system and co-operate with proper authorities in cases where posted video shows evidence of crime.
There is nothing more Youtube can do while continuing to operate at all; and while I am aware many people would love to turn back the clock and get rid of Youtube and all other websites like it, it ain't gonna happen...

Guy, Oxford,

Extraordinary comments so far. People are blaming You Tube. The real crime of course was the rape, which happened, whether or not it was on You Tube. You can't shoot the messenger.

Chris, Northampton, England

14 and 16 year olds , drugging and raping an innocent woman , then posting the video online and the debate here is about the website it appeared on ... did i miss a meeting ?

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

Are we somewhat missing the point here - this sounds a bit like its ok to rape just not to post it on the internet. Perhaps a more sensible challenge would be to target the perpetrators of crime or focussing on how drugs which are used in date rape are so easily available.

David, Derby,

One option for the victim of this crime would be to sue YouTube for damages in court. I'm not a lawyer but I would imagine she could argue a case that YouTube profited from her suffering based on web traffic and resulting advertising revenue, as that's the core of their business model. She is probably more focused on getting the semi-human pond slime that did this locked up first, however, which is understandable.

Once the main court case is over, however, it would be a good idea if she could get legal advice on how to take a case against YouTube, possibly with others who have had similar experiences e.g. happy slapping. It would highlight the issue and make the company sit up and take responsibility for the platform it provides criminals with.

MB, Edinburgh,

Youtube is a natural extension of the Freedom of speech which the Internet community hold dear. It is also a marvellously rich channel for communication of ideas and sharing of unique content which could not happen any other way. We should not sacrifice this due to the pressure of a small lobby group who do not put this event into perspective - of several billion page views per day only 600 are of this nature.

There are techical ways of moderating content using the file name or image processing of the video but it would affect the user experience. Policing via users is the only practical way forward - users need to be educated that if they do not report unsuitable content immediately it will threaten the future of the site and the site administrators need to remove the content as quickly as they can.

Again its the people who commit the crime who are the problem and Youtube may actually help bring them to justice - as it has done in the past.

I

Neil Watkinson, Ipswich, UK

What a sick world some of us inhabit.

I sincerely hope that by publicising their atrocious acts the rapists and their accomplices are caught and speedily prosecuted.

The victim and her children have already been through enough, without becoming someone's "entertainment"

Outraged of Tunbridge Wells, Kent,

The focus must not be lost: it is the crime itself that is so terrible. The fact that it was uploaded onto the internet, whilst in itself horrific, is more of an act of idiocy on the part of the perpetrators as it acts as pretty damning evidence. I don't believe that if YouTube was banned, the original crime would have been prevented - it simply would have not come to public attention in this way.

YouTube and its users should not be punished for the small percentage of its population which are criminal; the existence or not of a video website is not going to have an effect on the human source of atrocities such as this.

Seb, Surrey, England

Had the footage not been posted, the woman would still have been raped and the rapists would be far harder to get caught. I dare say the footage will make it much harder for them to complain that she had given drunken consent.

We should not be hard on YouTube. Inadvertently, they have helped catch the thugs.

Dennis, London,

youtube makes billions for their owners, who have essentially enriched themselves by providing a forum for users to present films of people committing gangrape, going happyslapping etc;etc; With that amount of power and public access (and financial reward) surely there must be an equal level of responsibility. To say that it's not technically feasible is a copout. If that is the case then the site should be shut down. Alternatively, they could be slightly less greedy and devote a tiny proportion of their enormous profits into ensuring that the site is not used in an immoral way. They run the site, they make the money, therefore they are responsible.

Ben, hopatcong, NJ

Yes, no doubt it is impossible for YouTube to vet everything that is put on the site. It costs money, and grubby little capitalists that permit this kind of abhorrence in the name of profit deserve having their filthy lucre taken off them. Imposing an equally obscene fine every time that something offensive was found might concentrate YouTube's minds into finding ways of vetting all material.
There has been software available for years that can detect human flesh in images, for example, and certain noises (e.g. children crying) can be picked out easily. YouTube's excuses are rubbish.
YouTube is not an essential of life. Were the site to be closed down completely life would go on. I would put them on notice and threaten their very existence and profits.

Dave, Slough,

YouTube is merely a message carrier. Some people want to abrogate responsibility for what they or their children watch.

You people out there who want to censor everything; you have a brain and you have choice. Just stop trying to tyrannise everyone else because you don't like something.

It's people like you who expect teachers to take your kids on holiday and then want to sue them if the little dears break a leg.

Get it clear: the internet is not evil. People can be evil. You must decide in advance what you want to see and if You Tube is not to your taste, simple. Don't visit the site. This video would not have appeared spontaneously anyway so you would have had to search for it.

Arnold Thang, London,

If You tube cannot preview images before they are posted, then they should not operate!
How bloody irresponsible is that.
Once they were made aware of this clip in question, did they inform the authorities and give them the address of where it was sent?
I hope the boys and girls in question are jailed for at least 10 years each, but knowing how flacid the law is here, they will probably get minimum sentance if anything!

Pete, St Albans, England

that's right, let's shoot the messenger! Let's close down the internet, while we're at it... Most of the stuff on it is rubbish anyway!

blec29, Paris, France

I find the proposal that YouTube should review every video posted on its' site as laughable. 10 hours of content uploaded every minute; I can't even begin to do the maths of how many people you would need to employ to review every piece.
In this instance it is extremely unfortunate and distressing that the video was on the site, but we do not need government control in every aspect of ours lives. A member of the viewing public quickly flagged the clip and it was taken down; self-regulation working much more effectively than any official regulation ever could.
Close down "YouTube and all its' ilk"? Somewhat knee-jerk, I think. Not entirely sure about holding the example of China up as a good way forward. We don't close down television stations when people complain.
And if you're worried about young children watching unsuitable clips the answer is simple: supervise your kids better.

James Merrylees, Beverley, East Yorkshire

This means anyone do something Racial, Violent and/or sexual, post it on YouTube and get a few days of fame from their peers.
Who needs the X-Factor?

joe, london, UK

If the internet made no money all corporate interest in freedom of speech would disappear. Change the law to make the internet providers liable and the technology to police this 'unsolvable' problem will after a time lag appear.

e skelton, cardiff, wales

I am so glad I have left britain...

ruby, nice, france

YouTube is moderated by users because this is the only way it could possibly be policed. Does anyone have any idea how many person-hours it would take for an employee or whoever to personally watch every second of every one of the uploaded videos? Well, according to the WSJ in August 2006, the total duration of videos viewed by users amounted to 9,305 years (http://tinyurl.com/k43gx).

So in fact the answer is not so simple. YouTube can't be held responsible for what its users post, nor could it be expected to censor them itself. Nobody, especially not the company itself, is condoning date rape, and it's absolutely shocking that some commenters have come to this conclusion. But the fact is that working with the authorities to ascertain the user who posted it is all the company can feasibly do. The fact that it was flagged and taken down after only 600 views to me shows that the system works, not that YouTube is hell-bent on disseminating disgusting acts of violence to the kidz.

Jay, London,

What was a mother of 2 doing drinking champagne with strangers for? That is very naive. Did she think they were just going to offer her some champagne and then leave - like the 'Champagne Fairy' or something. People who are this naive deserve to have their video on Youtube! Oh and for the reader who posts comments without reading the article - they can't watch EVERY video. If you had read the article you'd know they have 10 hrs of material downloaded every minute - do the math, genius!

Andrew Nyazai, Godalming, UK

Do not shoot the messenger. This is not YouTube's fault, but the rapists' who uploaded it.

Hanneluja, Oslo, Norway

I'm glad this young mother has come forward to report this crime and I hope that the police successfully convict them of rape. You Tube are accessories in my mind for allowing this to be published. How absolutely disgraceful.

Sally, uk,

Why did she even let 14 year old children in her home? why was she drinking champagne around them? It does not excuse what happened but situation does seem odd to begin with.

You tube should not let films of this nature be posted at all, it is websites like this that encourage 'Happy Slap' culture. Many jobs could be created to stop this kind of content making in through on to the internet, but this country seems unbothered. These sites are what inlfuences the confused youth in this country.

Sima, Croydon,

Banning YouTube or viewing all content before posting wouldn't have prevented the rape.

YouTube did all they could regarding removing the video after it had been flagged - a sysytem that seems to work pretty well, judging by the lack of porn on the site.

If you want to protect your kids from viewing inappropriate content on the web, you MUST block access to YouTube using softwaree like NetNanny or similar. WIth 10 hours of content being added every miute, it is impossible to filter all the potentially nasty content.

Alex McGregor, Plymouth, UK

The answer is simpler than that; rather than censoring the Internet, adults should take responsibility for what their children view online. If that means preventing them from using video sites, so be it. Most domestic ADSL routers can block websites. Windows Vista includes parental controls, as does the current Apple Mac operating system.

Why should legitimate users of video sites be punished because some people post inappropriate (even illegal) content and other people won't take responsibility for what their own children view?

It's sad that the posting of the video seems to be more of a concern than the rape which led to it. Hopefully the self-incriminating evidence that these idiots have published will be used to prosecute them.

Steve, Swindon,

the internet is public domaine.....no one owns it. the only thing that can be done is have people search the internet for 'evidence' of the crime ie, find out about this rape and prosicute not ban youtube for uploading it.
the crime isnt putting it on youtube, its doing it in the first place.
Plus you tube has inplace links and numbers to report the video...over 6000 people saw it and didnt report it...arent they more to blame than youtube itself?

Lucie, Macclesfield,

"The only option would be for them to review every video before it is posted and that is unrealistic."

No it is not unrealistic, it is just that they have chosen to allow it to happen.

I would also like to understand what the police response is when child pornography appears on the Youtube site as that has no excuse in law from my understanding. Perhaps a journalist would like to try and get a direct answer from them.
i.e Do they leave it on the site available for anyone to see until either they or someone else complains.?

Damien Crovov, London,

That is absolutely disgusting, YouTube is very popular with very young kids, some as young as 6-7?. To think that they may have watched this? YouTube should be sued. Not only does it have violent videos, some of it's comments are extremely racist and rude. It's free speech gone wild.

I say boycott it until they have moderation.

(most of the stuff on there is garbage anyway)

jayil, london, uk

disgusting thats all i can say..disgusting

l.a, Staffs,

Can the mobile that uploaded the film not be identified? Then the uploader could be prosecuted.

Better still, just close down You Tube and all its ilk. If China can police the Internet, why can't the west? (answer, because it doesn't want to....it would rather broadcast gang rape....)

janescott, London, UK

The answer is quite simple - YouTube should view every video BEFORE it is allowed on to the site. The woman should also sue them.

Andrew brown, derby, UK