8 ms·

The government of New Zealand’s entire response to the shooting incident, as well as the public’s cheering for it, is the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve e

The government of New Zealand’s entire response to the shooting incident, as well as the public’s cheering for it, is the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve ever seen. The level of authoritarian curbing of freedoms that has seemingly happened overnight at the stroke of a pen should seriously concern anyone who values constitutionally limited government. I’m all for the debate, but as an American it’s unimaginable to see such reactionary, arbitrary, far sweeping action taken by a supposed free country with almost no discussion or legal process.

patrickg_zill 8y ago
If NZ is actually, as is widely reported, a great bolt hole for the elite, then the last thing you as a member of the elite want to have in a massive economic downturn and crisis, is a ticked off bunch of natives to the area with firearms and a real time communication system, isn't it?
amanzi 8y ago
"is the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve ever seen" I think you need to go re-read some Orwell books.
sebthedev 8y ago
Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to? Off the top of my head, the government has: used the existing regulatory system to temporarily halt sales of the sort weapons used in the terrorist attack; introduced legislation into parliament to permanently halt sales of the sort of weapons used in the attack, which will proceed through the regular legislative process; announced plans to investigate how the attack was not prevented by security services; and facilitated memorial services for victims.
- incompatible 8y ago
  So they haven't actually done anything to try to restrict the shooting video, at least on foreign websites (it may be illegal under existing NZ law?) It suppose it wouldn't actually be hard for them to seize the copyright (perhaps with a new law if required) and start issuing DMCA takedowns or threats of lawsuits.
  - erentz 8y ago
    Common misconception that this is directed by the government, like Mubarak ordering the internet cut off or something. The Office of Film and Literature classification reviews and classified media material in NZ, similar to how the MPAA does for films in the USA. It can also classify materials as “objectionable” at which point they become illegal to possess or trade (except by certain request, eg if you’re an academic wanting to study it). This is extremely rare. It must meet the definitions under the law that the office operators under. And it is free from political influence because the role is separated and operated independently as a commission. It is checked by the ability of the judicial branch to evaluate these cases against the definition in the law. And the law can be changed by the citizens electing new representation and giving mandate for that to be done. The takedowns that Facebook and YouTube have been performing started immediately after the attack loooooong before the video was classified as objectionable. This is because Facebook and YouTube do not want to distribute these videos. That’s all.
    - incompatible 8y ago
      That's more or less what I thought. So it's not even illegal in NZ unless the Office of Film and Literature Classification actually bans it? Edit: I see now they have banned it, and the "manifesto" too. https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/christchurch-attacks-press-releases/ https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/ch...
    - gruez 8y ago
      >Common misconception that this is directed by the government [...] The Office of Film and Literature classification reviews and classified media material in NZ, similar to how the MPAA does for films in the USA. But the Office of Film and Literature Classification is literally a government agency, according to Wikipedia. Maybe it's staffed by bureaucrats rather than elected officials, but it's still government censorship. MPAA, on the other hand, is a trade association, and compliance with its ratings is purely voluntary. >It must meet the definitions under the law that the office operators under. [...] It is checked by the ability of the judicial branch to evaluate these cases against the definition in the law. I wouldn't count on this, given how vague the the law is, and how useless constitution is (see comment elsewhere in this thread). >And the law can be changed by the citizens electing new representation and giving mandate for that to be done. That's a final backstop, but if there's active government censorship going on, how can the results of the subsequent election be trusted?
- aphextron 8y ago
  >Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to? Namely the banning of the manifesto. Blocking images of violence is one thing. But making the leap to blocking ideas is on a whole other level. I’m all for de-platforming. No one should be forced to host your vile content, legal or not. But for the government of your country to ban a specific string of characters as a criminal matter is terrifying.
  - colejohnson66 8y ago
    Why is banning a string of characters terrifying, but not a string of bits?
    - oska 8y ago
      In my opinion aphextron was being overly reductionist in describing the manifesto as just a string of characters. The manifesto was a presentation of a political viewpoint (and perhaps a call to action - I don't know, I haven't read it). The manifesto qualifies as speech. The video was a record of a criminal act of great violence. I wouldn't classify the video as speech. (In contrast, a fictional portrayal of the same acts but made with actors and no-one dying would be speech).
      - telesilla 8y ago
        New Zealand, and many other parts of the world, do not share the U.S.'s "free speech" concept. Speech is not protected and yet the country is high on the freedom of press index. https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/new-zealand/ https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/new-zealand/
        oska 8y ago
        I'm not from the USA and I didn't make any reference to the US in my comment. I've already dealt with this false argument elsewhere in the thread. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19473330 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19473330
- shard972 8y ago
  Maybe putting a teen in jail, now facing 10 years for sharing the video with an edgy comment.
  - jen729w 8y ago
    Do you have a reputable source for this? All I can find is from fringe sites.
    - gruez 8y ago
      random search: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6820769/Teen-accused-sharing-livestream-Christchurch-massacre-faces-14-years-hes-denied-bail.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6820769/Teen-accuse... >The accused teenage Facebook poster appeared in Christchurch District Court on Monday and was granted an interim name suppression order, but he was denied bail by Judge Stephen O'Driscoll. https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/18/14/49/christchurch-shooting-teen-shared-video-denied-bail https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/18/14/49/christchurch-shoot...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - doldge 8y ago
    actions have consequences; whether those actions take place online or not. If what he did was hate speech, then it makes sense to charge him with it. That he did it online, or didn't realise that saying vile things would have undesirable consequences shouldn't excuse the behaviour. (N.B I think he should be charged with something, but I don't think prison time is a fair response to his actions).
    - jjcm 8y ago
      Actions do have consequences, and the New Zealand government should be aware of this. Sentencing an 18 year old to 14 years in prison has the consequence of making them a non-functioning member of society in the future. This is not a reparative way to respond to what he did.
- Rebelgecko 8y ago
  Perhaps nitpicky, but I believe the potential ban and existing re-categorization of certain types of weapons would only ban 2/5 of the firearms he used.
  - pryce 8y ago
    All of the firearms he used were banned.
    - Rebelgecko 8y ago
      Are you sure? I thought the ban only applied to semi-automatic guns, not pump or lever action.
      - pryce 8y ago
        The new restrictions also restrict shotguns with detachable magazines that can hold over a specific number of rounds, but I retract my statement as I have not been able to establish exactly which model of shotgun the perpetrator used.
        Rebelgecko 8y ago
        He also had a lever action rifle although I don't know if he used it
erentz 8y ago
> the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve ever seen. The level of authoritarian curbing of freedoms that has seemingly happened overnight at the stroke of a pen should seriously concern anyone who values constitutionally limited government. Woah hold the hyperbole. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. What actions specifically are you even referring to? The change in gun laws? Australia banned semi-automatics. It’s survived. Pretty sure New Zealand will be okay without them too. This post is about the ISPs banning sites, not something that the government of either country directed. (As the post makes clear Australia’s largest telco is also banning these sites.) > I’m all for the debate, but as an American it’s unimaginable to see such reactionary, arbitrary, far sweeping action taken by a supposed free country with almost no discussion or legal process. What was far sweeping and done with no discussion or legal process? You pretend like there isn’t a parliament with elected members, a far more representative and democratic parliament that any US government due to the use of proportional representation. This parliament is the legislative branch and can, well enact legislation, which is doing to ban semi automatic weapons based on the results of previous government enquiries into the matter that weren’t acted on. (Talk about throwing stones here, seemingly nobody remembers 9/11 and the Patriot Act, and mass spying on Americans, and trillions spent on false wars that followed.) A civil debate about the actions of these ISPs and the ability of private companies operating as utilities to censor or throttle or otherwise mess with neutrality of the utility they provide is very much warranted, but you’re not doing that here.
- huntie 8y ago
  The ISPs aren't banning sites for kicks. New Zealanders have been arrested for distributing the video.
  - erentz 8y ago
    Note the bans on some of those NZ ISPs started before the video was classified as objectionable. So they’re not banning them to prevent their customers from facing charges. They’re doing it for other poorly explained reasons that aren’t legally required.
    - 8y ago
abraae 8y ago
Almost everyone in NZ that I've talked to, which includes a few gun owners, has been in broad agreement with the moves to ban MSSA weapons - cheering for it is probably a good assessment. I cannot fathom how anyone could call that Orwellian, it feels more like plain common sense.
- int_19h 8y ago
  You're not likely to hear from people who are not in broad agreement right now for this exact reason - they'd be tarred and feathered by the supermajority in favor.
- hackerman12345 8y ago
  "Guns are too dangerous, give them to us or we'll shoot you and take them from your cold, dead hands" might be a little bit totalitarian.
  - abraae 8y ago
    Attitudes are different in NZ from the US. There is no right to bear arms, and self defense is not a valid reason to hold a firearm licence. An overwhelming majority of people believe that military style weapons have no place in society, and that those guns - though not all guns - are too dangerous, and that accordingly yes, you must hand them over.
    - hackerman12345 8y ago
      Even if an overwhelming majority of people believe state shootings (with guns) of people who won't hand them over is moral and ok in society.. the point of my reply still stands and has nothing to do with the right to self-defense etc. There are plenty of times in history when overwhelming majorities beliefs took away minority rights. When reading the wrong words can get you 10 years in prison, it probably does trend towards Orwell's future though.
      - mallets 8y ago
StavrosK 8y ago
What did they do? I'm only aware of the gun bans, which strikes me as reasonable. The TSA, for example, with the random luggage and body searches strikes me as an order of magnitude more Orwellian.
- erentz 8y ago
  Don’t forget the 60,000 strong force that is allowed to stop anyone within 100 miles of a border, ask for papers, and put anyone they like, including American citizens in jail without trial or normal legal process, sometimes for years.
  - adventured 8y ago
    > put anyone they like, including American citizens in jail without trial or normal legal process, sometimes for years. So in a country of ~330 million, with 32 million flights every year across the US, would you mind listing the total number of times that actually happens? Where people are detained for years with no due process by that 60,000 force. If something happens a few times per year at that scale, while being shameful non-the-less, it's a freak outlier in fact and is not a legitimate example of common outcomes to support your comment.
- int_19h 8y ago
  The bans will, for the most part, be useless, as most gun bans based on features usually are. To see why, look up e.g. "MARS action rifle", or "lever release AR-15". At the same time, countries that don't bother with stuff like that, but instead regulate who can own firearms much more stringently than US does - e.g. Czech Republic - are doing fine.
  - aspett 8y ago
    > At the same time, countries that don't bother with stuff like that, but instead regulate who can own firearms much more stringently than US does - e.g. Czech Republic - are doing fine. I think you'd have said the same thing about New Zealand a week and a half ago, yet here we are.
baconhigh 8y ago
All the political parties of NZ government agreed on the ban of semi-automatic military style weapons, which should have been illegal long ago. What 'curbing of freedom' do you see happening, exactly?
apostacy 8y ago
Thank you, very well said! I'm also disappointed with the response on HN as supposedly free governments cut off entire chunks of the Internet. Any concern about this is met with "but if we don't kill the Internet then the Nazis will win!" I'm most horrified by people's defense of the government getting really good at arresting people for "trolling"[1] [1]: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-people-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-peo...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nzealand 8y ago
> the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve ever seen Even compared with the patriot act and the war against Iraq?
peterashford 8y ago
The Chief Censor is independent from the NZ government.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

If NZ is actually, as is widely reported, a great bolt hole for the elite, then the last thing you as a member of the elite want to have in a massive economic downturn and crisis, is a ticked off bunch of natives to the area with firearms and a real time communication system, isn't it?

amanzi 8y ago

"is the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve ever seen" I think you need to go re-read some Orwell books.

sebthedev 8y ago

Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to? Off the top of my head, the government has: used the existing regulatory system to temporarily halt sales of the sort weapons used in the terrorist attack; introduced legislation into parliament to permanently halt sales of the sort of weapons used in the attack, which will proceed through the regular legislative process; announced plans to investigate how the attack was not prevented by security services; and facilitated memorial services for victims.

incompatible 8y ago
So they haven't actually done anything to try to restrict the shooting video, at least on foreign websites (it may be illegal under existing NZ law?) It suppose it wouldn't actually be hard for them to seize the copyright (perhaps with a new law if required) and start issuing DMCA takedowns or threats of lawsuits.
- erentz 8y ago
  Common misconception that this is directed by the government, like Mubarak ordering the internet cut off or something. The Office of Film and Literature classification reviews and classified media material in NZ, similar to how the MPAA does for films in the USA. It can also classify materials as “objectionable” at which point they become illegal to possess or trade (except by certain request, eg if you’re an academic wanting to study it). This is extremely rare. It must meet the definitions under the law that the office operators under. And it is free from political influence because the role is separated and operated independently as a commission. It is checked by the ability of the judicial branch to evaluate these cases against the definition in the law. And the law can be changed by the citizens electing new representation and giving mandate for that to be done. The takedowns that Facebook and YouTube have been performing started immediately after the attack loooooong before the video was classified as objectionable. This is because Facebook and YouTube do not want to distribute these videos. That’s all.
  - incompatible 8y ago
    That's more or less what I thought. So it's not even illegal in NZ unless the Office of Film and Literature Classification actually bans it? Edit: I see now they have banned it, and the "manifesto" too. https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/christchurch-attacks-press-releases/ https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/ch...
  - gruez 8y ago
    >Common misconception that this is directed by the government [...] The Office of Film and Literature classification reviews and classified media material in NZ, similar to how the MPAA does for films in the USA. But the Office of Film and Literature Classification is literally a government agency, according to Wikipedia. Maybe it's staffed by bureaucrats rather than elected officials, but it's still government censorship. MPAA, on the other hand, is a trade association, and compliance with its ratings is purely voluntary. >It must meet the definitions under the law that the office operators under. [...] It is checked by the ability of the judicial branch to evaluate these cases against the definition in the law. I wouldn't count on this, given how vague the the law is, and how useless constitution is (see comment elsewhere in this thread). >And the law can be changed by the citizens electing new representation and giving mandate for that to be done. That's a final backstop, but if there's active government censorship going on, how can the results of the subsequent election be trusted?
aphextron 8y ago
>Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to? Namely the banning of the manifesto. Blocking images of violence is one thing. But making the leap to blocking ideas is on a whole other level. I’m all for de-platforming. No one should be forced to host your vile content, legal or not. But for the government of your country to ban a specific string of characters as a criminal matter is terrifying.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  Why is banning a string of characters terrifying, but not a string of bits?
  - oska 8y ago
    In my opinion aphextron was being overly reductionist in describing the manifesto as just a string of characters. The manifesto was a presentation of a political viewpoint (and perhaps a call to action - I don't know, I haven't read it). The manifesto qualifies as speech. The video was a record of a criminal act of great violence. I wouldn't classify the video as speech. (In contrast, a fictional portrayal of the same acts but made with actors and no-one dying would be speech).
    - telesilla 8y ago
      New Zealand, and many other parts of the world, do not share the U.S.'s "free speech" concept. Speech is not protected and yet the country is high on the freedom of press index. https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/new-zealand/ https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/new-zealand/
      - oska 8y ago
        I'm not from the USA and I didn't make any reference to the US in my comment. I've already dealt with this false argument elsewhere in the thread. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19473330 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19473330
shard972 8y ago
Maybe putting a teen in jail, now facing 10 years for sharing the video with an edgy comment.
- jen729w 8y ago
  Do you have a reputable source for this? All I can find is from fringe sites.
  - gruez 8y ago
    random search: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6820769/Teen-accused-sharing-livestream-Christchurch-massacre-faces-14-years-hes-denied-bail.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6820769/Teen-accuse... >The accused teenage Facebook poster appeared in Christchurch District Court on Monday and was granted an interim name suppression order, but he was denied bail by Judge Stephen O'Driscoll. https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/18/14/49/christchurch-shooting-teen-shared-video-denied-bail https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/18/14/49/christchurch-shoot...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- doldge 8y ago
  actions have consequences; whether those actions take place online or not. If what he did was hate speech, then it makes sense to charge him with it. That he did it online, or didn't realise that saying vile things would have undesirable consequences shouldn't excuse the behaviour. (N.B I think he should be charged with something, but I don't think prison time is a fair response to his actions).
  - jjcm 8y ago
    Actions do have consequences, and the New Zealand government should be aware of this. Sentencing an 18 year old to 14 years in prison has the consequence of making them a non-functioning member of society in the future. This is not a reparative way to respond to what he did.
Rebelgecko 8y ago
Perhaps nitpicky, but I believe the potential ban and existing re-categorization of certain types of weapons would only ban 2/5 of the firearms he used.
- pryce 8y ago
  All of the firearms he used were banned.
  - Rebelgecko 8y ago
    Are you sure? I thought the ban only applied to semi-automatic guns, not pump or lever action.
    - pryce 8y ago
      The new restrictions also restrict shotguns with detachable magazines that can hold over a specific number of rounds, but I retract my statement as I have not been able to establish exactly which model of shotgun the perpetrator used.
      - Rebelgecko 8y ago
        He also had a lever action rifle although I don't know if he used it

erentz 8y ago

> the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve ever seen. The level of authoritarian curbing of freedoms that has seemingly happened overnight at the stroke of a pen should seriously concern anyone who values constitutionally limited government. Woah hold the hyperbole. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. What actions specifically are you even referring to? The change in gun laws? Australia banned semi-automatics. It’s survived. Pretty sure New Zealand will be okay without them too. This post is about the ISPs banning sites, not something that the government of either country directed. (As the post makes clear Australia’s largest telco is also banning these sites.) > I’m all for the debate, but as an American it’s unimaginable to see such reactionary, arbitrary, far sweeping action taken by a supposed free country with almost no discussion or legal process. What was far sweeping and done with no discussion or legal process? You pretend like there isn’t a parliament with elected members, a far more representative and democratic parliament that any US government due to the use of proportional representation. This parliament is the legislative branch and can, well enact legislation, which is doing to ban semi automatic weapons based on the results of previous government enquiries into the matter that weren’t acted on. (Talk about throwing stones here, seemingly nobody remembers 9/11 and the Patriot Act, and mass spying on Americans, and trillions spent on false wars that followed.) A civil debate about the actions of these ISPs and the ability of private companies operating as utilities to censor or throttle or otherwise mess with neutrality of the utility they provide is very much warranted, but you’re not doing that here.

huntie 8y ago
The ISPs aren't banning sites for kicks. New Zealanders have been arrested for distributing the video.
- erentz 8y ago
  Note the bans on some of those NZ ISPs started before the video was classified as objectionable. So they’re not banning them to prevent their customers from facing charges. They’re doing it for other poorly explained reasons that aren’t legally required.
  - 8y ago

abraae 8y ago

Almost everyone in NZ that I've talked to, which includes a few gun owners, has been in broad agreement with the moves to ban MSSA weapons - cheering for it is probably a good assessment. I cannot fathom how anyone could call that Orwellian, it feels more like plain common sense.

int_19h 8y ago
You're not likely to hear from people who are not in broad agreement right now for this exact reason - they'd be tarred and feathered by the supermajority in favor.
hackerman12345 8y ago
"Guns are too dangerous, give them to us or we'll shoot you and take them from your cold, dead hands" might be a little bit totalitarian.
- abraae 8y ago
  Attitudes are different in NZ from the US. There is no right to bear arms, and self defense is not a valid reason to hold a firearm licence. An overwhelming majority of people believe that military style weapons have no place in society, and that those guns - though not all guns - are too dangerous, and that accordingly yes, you must hand them over.
  - hackerman12345 8y ago
    Even if an overwhelming majority of people believe state shootings (with guns) of people who won't hand them over is moral and ok in society.. the point of my reply still stands and has nothing to do with the right to self-defense etc. There are plenty of times in history when overwhelming majorities beliefs took away minority rights. When reading the wrong words can get you 10 years in prison, it probably does trend towards Orwell's future though.
    - mallets 8y ago

StavrosK 8y ago

What did they do? I'm only aware of the gun bans, which strikes me as reasonable. The TSA, for example, with the random luggage and body searches strikes me as an order of magnitude more Orwellian.

erentz 8y ago
Don’t forget the 60,000 strong force that is allowed to stop anyone within 100 miles of a border, ask for papers, and put anyone they like, including American citizens in jail without trial or normal legal process, sometimes for years.
- adventured 8y ago
  > put anyone they like, including American citizens in jail without trial or normal legal process, sometimes for years. So in a country of ~330 million, with 32 million flights every year across the US, would you mind listing the total number of times that actually happens? Where people are detained for years with no due process by that 60,000 force. If something happens a few times per year at that scale, while being shameful non-the-less, it's a freak outlier in fact and is not a legitimate example of common outcomes to support your comment.
int_19h 8y ago
The bans will, for the most part, be useless, as most gun bans based on features usually are. To see why, look up e.g. "MARS action rifle", or "lever release AR-15". At the same time, countries that don't bother with stuff like that, but instead regulate who can own firearms much more stringently than US does - e.g. Czech Republic - are doing fine.
- aspett 8y ago
  > At the same time, countries that don't bother with stuff like that, but instead regulate who can own firearms much more stringently than US does - e.g. Czech Republic - are doing fine. I think you'd have said the same thing about New Zealand a week and a half ago, yet here we are.

baconhigh 8y ago

All the political parties of NZ government agreed on the ban of semi-automatic military style weapons, which should have been illegal long ago. What 'curbing of freedom' do you see happening, exactly?

apostacy 8y ago

Thank you, very well said! I'm also disappointed with the response on HN as supposedly free governments cut off entire chunks of the Internet. Any concern about this is met with "but if we don't kill the Internet then the Nazis will win!" I'm most horrified by people's defense of the government getting really good at arresting people for "trolling"[1] [1]: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-people-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-peo...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

nzealand 8y ago

> the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve ever seen Even compared with the patriot act and the war against Iraq?

peterashford 8y ago

The Chief Censor is independent from the NZ government.