12 ms·

Not everyone holds the same absolute views on freedom of speech as those drawn up in the American constitution. There is also plenty of opposing views of a "con

Not everyone holds the same absolute views on freedom of speech as those drawn up in the American constitution. There is also plenty of opposing views of a "constitutionally limited government" that seems to be at the heart of American culture. Frankly, it's pretty disturbing how many Americans are unable to comprehend that their way isn't the "only way" that can be valid. The New Zealand Bill of Rights provides freedom of expression, but it's also limited by the human rights act. Racial disharmony is illegal. Even if the shooter didn't follow through with the shootings, he could have been punished for simply publishing that manifesto of his.

PostOnce 8y ago
The New Zealand Bill of Rights is the single most toothless, feeble, pointless piece of legislation I have ever read. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225500.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/D... Literally everything else overrides it, if I'm reading this right: -------- Other enactments not affected No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights),— (a)hold any provision of the enactment to be impliedly repealed or revoked, or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or (b)decline to apply any provision of the enactment— by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights. -------- So if every other law automatically overrides it, what is the point? Are they even rights at all, at that point? We need a stronger set of rights.
- cam_l 8y ago
  I mean i don't disagree, but speaking as an Aussie, at least you have one..
- int_19h 8y ago
  Well, your Bill of Rights is just a law passed by the Parliament. As such, it can be repealed by the Parliament, if and when they feel like it. This is your parliamentary sovereignty system at work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
- anfilt 8y ago
  Man that's not worth the paper it's written on then.... How is the NZ government related though... This is ISPs just deciding to block sites.
huntie 8y ago
Americans are unable to comprehend it in the same way that the civilised world cannot comprehend enslaving another. Just as enslaving others is wrong, limiting free speech is wrong, and inherently contradictory. Limited speech is not free. It is time for the rest of the world to understand this, and the US could use a refresher as well.
- doesnt_know 8y ago
  Pretty disturbing you compare disallowing hate speech to enslaving someone. Also pretty ironic considering > the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    Note that in the US the prison population has exploded since the mental institutions were closed (i.e. there was a transfer of people with mental problems to prisons) which explains also why you have this increased percentage compared to other countries.
  - huntie 8y ago
    First, I agree that the US has an incarceration problem. We're certainly not perfect, and I think much of the problem is due to the US's drug problem. Regardless, comparing incarceration to slavery is disingenuous as slavery requires no wrongdoing whereas incarceration should require wrongdoing. As for my comparison of disallowing hate speech to slavery, it is a very valid comparison. The two are morally reprehensible for similar reasons; one is slavery of the body, the other is slavery of the mind. History has shown time and again that what is en vogue today may be hate speech tomorrow.
    - rbg246 8y ago
      I don't see any problem with a government who is freely elected enacting laws that disallow hate speech. To assist with balancing these rights and restrictions there is an independent judiciary and court system that moderates these laws and works out whether they have gone too far.
ekianjo 8y ago
> Not everyone holds the same absolute views on freedom of speech as those drawn up in the American constitution You are right about that. 99% of countries on Earth have weaker constitutional rights than the US in terms of Free Speech - if any right at all.
- oneplane 8y ago
  What you might call 'weak' might be called 'sensible' by others. At the same time, not everyone peddling the 'constitutional' stuff actually knows what it contains or how it applies. Imagine other countries copying the slavery-like rules for jailed persons... At the same time: freedom of speech goes about as far as what it causes; you are free to say what you want, but nobody has to give you a soap box or audience. That is the same thing that is basically happening in NZ. If you think the colour of your skin is better than the colour of someone else's skin, that's your issue and the internet/press/media etc aren't going to provide you with a platform. And if you try to do it anyway, you will get a reaction. (i.e. jail) In the US, even with your constitution, you have similar situations. If you want to start a clan of people who dislike other people and try to have club meeting and put those in the newspaper or on TV, you will also get a reaction (jail, fines etc.).
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Or it might be called "weak" by others. I'm not an American, but I agree with him. You say that one is "free to say what you want", but then immediately describe a case of a person literally saying what's on their mind and getting jailed for that. You're welcome to argue in favor of such censorship, but whether it does or does not have a valid reason, it's still censorship - and so not free by definition. Oh, and the scenario that you describe is impossible in US. It is perfectly legal to start a private club that discriminates in membership, even against otherwise protected classes, and to advertise it as such. It only becomes illegal when you offer a public service.
    - calcifer 8y ago
      > I'm not an American, but I agree with him. You've been living in the US for more than a decade, so I don't think your "even me, a non-American, agrees with him!" card is as strong as you think.
oska 8y ago
Why do you think supporters of Free Speech look to the American constitution? This seems like a strawman to me. Support for Free Speech has a very long and broad history, a great deal of which predates the founding of the USA and a great deal of which has been outside the USA. People across the world and throughout history don't like being silenced.
- marcus_holmes 8y ago
  Not all peoples. Some cultures are "collective" (as opposed to the West's "individualistic") and value social harmony more than individual rights. In these cultures, speaking your mind when it causes any kind of disagreement or conflict is not encouraged and can lead to social penalties. This is not "the authorities" censoring free speech; this is family, friends and neighbours trying to maintain a harmonious community.
  - oska 8y ago
    Yes, there is a contrasting dynamic of restricting/stifling speech "to promote social harmony". This is also present in the US, cf. the deplatforming movement. My point is that a desire for free speech is not endemic to the US and framing the promotion/defence of it in other countries as referencing the US is misleading. I'm Australian and affected by this censorship. I wouldn't think to reference the US Constitution in arguing against it. When I argue for free speech I argue from principles, not from the example of another country's constitutional framework.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
deogeo 8y ago
> it's pretty disturbing how many Americans are unable to comprehend that their way isn't the "only way" that can be valid. Don't assume everyone advocating for US-style free-speech is American - I am not.
nutjob2 8y ago
It should be noted that the first amendment doesn't apply to companies, ie you have no rights with respect to them. For example Facebook is doing the exact same thing.
- huntie 8y ago
  Companies may not be legally culpable for freedom of speech, but they are still morally culpable. Rights are not a legal construct, but a moral imperative. The founders of the United States recognized the importance of these rights and created a tiered system of laws in order to ensure these rights would be maintained by the government. Sadly we have no such guarantee from companies.
legostormtroopr 8y ago
> "Racial disharmony is illegal." Why? Why should racial disharmony be illegal? It sucks when people don't like you, maybe they have good reasons, maybe not - but legislating "harmony" just sounds wrong. Also, why are people allowed to loudly proclaim "white people are evil" loudly, and broadly, without issues - isn't that also racial disharmony?
- shard972 8y ago
  Because during this period where global leaders are attempting to wipe out all races and merge us all into "one mocha colored race" there is going to be a lot of conflict so they need to get ahead of it and just ban anything racist out of fears it starts another race riot.
- marcus_holmes 8y ago
  Why? because Australia and NZ have large immigrant populations (in fact, are large immigrant populations) that contain many races. Racial disharmony causes huge problems, and creates the real possibility of violence, mayhem and bloodshed. As reasonable societies, these things are seen as bad and to be avoided. Consequently, actions that will create racial disharmony are illegal. You can hate on whoever you like, but you can't grab a megaphone, head down to the mall, and encourage other people to hate the same people that you do. I don't know about you, but that seems like a pretty benign restriction to me...
  - oska 8y ago
    > but you can't grab a megaphone, head down to the mall, and encourage other people to hate the same people that you do Your example is a misdirection. What you describe is being a public nuisance in a public area, not free speech. I don't want to be subjected to nasty, racist rhetoric in a public space, just as I don't want to be harangued to repent of my sins and "Let Jesus into my life" in the same place. But I support the right of people to be able to express these views in a published form, or in closed spaces such as on a talking tour or in a church. In both cases audiences are seeking to be exposed to these views and are actively going to a place to find them, not having them pushed on them as they go about their ordinary lives.
mbo 8y ago
Also of note is the Australian Bill of Rights. Here's a link to a PDF of it:
seem_2211 8y ago
Agreed. I grew up in NZ and now live in America. There are distinct cultural differences that really do separate the two countries. The need for freedom and privacy (although really is a bit of a joke considering the power of the federal government) is one that's really important to Americans. Kiwis don't really have that inherent distrust of the government in the same way, and our equivalent idea is that we're all more or less equal citizens. That's why gun bans are pretty easy to put through in NZ (the safety of the collective is less important than the personal freedom of the individual), and why America has a political class unwilling to do something like socialize healthcare (even at a regional level). In my experience, if you're selling a political ideal to an American, emphasize personal freedom. If you're selling a political ideal to a New Zealander emphasize fairness.
- adventured 8y ago
  > and why America has a political class unwilling to do something like socialize healthcare (even at a regional level) I don't see how that's a correct statement. Half of Americans are in some form of government, socialized, healthcare system. Socialized healthcare is not only common in America (a quarter of the population is on fully socialized programs just in Medicaid/CHIP/etc), it's quite popular with about 2/3 of the population and the majority of politicians. The US spends about $650 billion just on the Medicaid + CHIP programs. Republicans hardly dare to go anywhere near Medicaid or Medicare these days. 30-40 years ago, the exact opposite was the case, Republicans (the traditional opposition party to socialized healthcare) frequently, commonly argued against nearly all forms of government healthcare. In the Reagan era, it was routine for prominent Republican politicians to call for privatized alternatives to Medicare. Today they won't dare go near that for fear of voter retribution. The most likely outcome over the next 10-15 years, is Medicaid will see continued expansion up the lower economic tiers and will cover 1/3 of the population on traditional socialized healthcare. Within probably 20 to 30 years, it'll only be the top 1/4 that will still be in the mostly private system. Socialized healthcare is taking over the US by default and necessity, its popularity will only increase by the year with the bottom 2/3 of the economic ladder.
ElCapitanMarkla 8y ago
These “freedom” and “liberties” discussions have been fascinating to read.
sintaxi 8y ago
The American Constitution is the longest standing implemented constitutional document in the world. Clearly they have done something right. The American Constitution isn't optimized for perfect social harmony. Its designed to work and stand the test of time. The New Zealand constitution is only 33 years old - which is peanuts. If it doesn't stand the test of time then your opinion really doesn't hold water does it?
- Throwway32 8y ago
  The American Constitution is the longest standing implemented constitutional document in the world. Clearly they have done something right. The American Constitution isn't optimized for perfect social harmony. Its designed to work and stand the test of time. The New Zealand constitution is only 33 years old - which is peanuts. If it doesn't stand the test of time then your opinion really doesn't hold water does it? Brandenberg v Ohio dates back to 1969. That was only 50 years ago.
  - sintaxi 8y ago
    Say more. You haven't made a point. The American Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788. Thats 231 years ago.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

PostOnce 8y ago

The New Zealand Bill of Rights is the single most toothless, feeble, pointless piece of legislation I have ever read. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225500.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/D... Literally everything else overrides it, if I'm reading this right: -------- Other enactments not affected No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights),— (a)hold any provision of the enactment to be impliedly repealed or revoked, or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or (b)decline to apply any provision of the enactment— by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights. -------- So if every other law automatically overrides it, what is the point? Are they even rights at all, at that point? We need a stronger set of rights.

cam_l 8y ago
I mean i don't disagree, but speaking as an Aussie, at least you have one..
int_19h 8y ago
Well, your Bill of Rights is just a law passed by the Parliament. As such, it can be repealed by the Parliament, if and when they feel like it. This is your parliamentary sovereignty system at work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
anfilt 8y ago
Man that's not worth the paper it's written on then.... How is the NZ government related though... This is ISPs just deciding to block sites.

huntie 8y ago

Americans are unable to comprehend it in the same way that the civilised world cannot comprehend enslaving another. Just as enslaving others is wrong, limiting free speech is wrong, and inherently contradictory. Limited speech is not free. It is time for the rest of the world to understand this, and the US could use a refresher as well.

doesnt_know 8y ago
Pretty disturbing you compare disallowing hate speech to enslaving someone. Also pretty ironic considering > the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners
- ekianjo 8y ago
  Note that in the US the prison population has exploded since the mental institutions were closed (i.e. there was a transfer of people with mental problems to prisons) which explains also why you have this increased percentage compared to other countries.
- huntie 8y ago
  First, I agree that the US has an incarceration problem. We're certainly not perfect, and I think much of the problem is due to the US's drug problem. Regardless, comparing incarceration to slavery is disingenuous as slavery requires no wrongdoing whereas incarceration should require wrongdoing. As for my comparison of disallowing hate speech to slavery, it is a very valid comparison. The two are morally reprehensible for similar reasons; one is slavery of the body, the other is slavery of the mind. History has shown time and again that what is en vogue today may be hate speech tomorrow.
  - rbg246 8y ago
    I don't see any problem with a government who is freely elected enacting laws that disallow hate speech. To assist with balancing these rights and restrictions there is an independent judiciary and court system that moderates these laws and works out whether they have gone too far.

ekianjo 8y ago

> Not everyone holds the same absolute views on freedom of speech as those drawn up in the American constitution You are right about that. 99% of countries on Earth have weaker constitutional rights than the US in terms of Free Speech - if any right at all.

oneplane 8y ago
What you might call 'weak' might be called 'sensible' by others. At the same time, not everyone peddling the 'constitutional' stuff actually knows what it contains or how it applies. Imagine other countries copying the slavery-like rules for jailed persons... At the same time: freedom of speech goes about as far as what it causes; you are free to say what you want, but nobody has to give you a soap box or audience. That is the same thing that is basically happening in NZ. If you think the colour of your skin is better than the colour of someone else's skin, that's your issue and the internet/press/media etc aren't going to provide you with a platform. And if you try to do it anyway, you will get a reaction. (i.e. jail) In the US, even with your constitution, you have similar situations. If you want to start a clan of people who dislike other people and try to have club meeting and put those in the newspaper or on TV, you will also get a reaction (jail, fines etc.).
- int_19h 8y ago
  Or it might be called "weak" by others. I'm not an American, but I agree with him. You say that one is "free to say what you want", but then immediately describe a case of a person literally saying what's on their mind and getting jailed for that. You're welcome to argue in favor of such censorship, but whether it does or does not have a valid reason, it's still censorship - and so not free by definition. Oh, and the scenario that you describe is impossible in US. It is perfectly legal to start a private club that discriminates in membership, even against otherwise protected classes, and to advertise it as such. It only becomes illegal when you offer a public service.
  - calcifer 8y ago
    > I'm not an American, but I agree with him. You've been living in the US for more than a decade, so I don't think your "even me, a non-American, agrees with him!" card is as strong as you think.

oska 8y ago

Why do you think supporters of Free Speech look to the American constitution? This seems like a strawman to me. Support for Free Speech has a very long and broad history, a great deal of which predates the founding of the USA and a great deal of which has been outside the USA. People across the world and throughout history don't like being silenced.

marcus_holmes 8y ago
Not all peoples. Some cultures are "collective" (as opposed to the West's "individualistic") and value social harmony more than individual rights. In these cultures, speaking your mind when it causes any kind of disagreement or conflict is not encouraged and can lead to social penalties. This is not "the authorities" censoring free speech; this is family, friends and neighbours trying to maintain a harmonious community.
- oska 8y ago
  Yes, there is a contrasting dynamic of restricting/stifling speech "to promote social harmony". This is also present in the US, cf. the deplatforming movement. My point is that a desire for free speech is not endemic to the US and framing the promotion/defence of it in other countries as referencing the US is misleading. I'm Australian and affected by this censorship. I wouldn't think to reference the US Constitution in arguing against it. When I argue for free speech I argue from principles, not from the example of another country's constitutional framework.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

deogeo 8y ago

> it's pretty disturbing how many Americans are unable to comprehend that their way isn't the "only way" that can be valid. Don't assume everyone advocating for US-style free-speech is American - I am not.

nutjob2 8y ago

It should be noted that the first amendment doesn't apply to companies, ie you have no rights with respect to them. For example Facebook is doing the exact same thing.

huntie 8y ago
Companies may not be legally culpable for freedom of speech, but they are still morally culpable. Rights are not a legal construct, but a moral imperative. The founders of the United States recognized the importance of these rights and created a tiered system of laws in order to ensure these rights would be maintained by the government. Sadly we have no such guarantee from companies.

legostormtroopr 8y ago

> "Racial disharmony is illegal." Why? Why should racial disharmony be illegal? It sucks when people don't like you, maybe they have good reasons, maybe not - but legislating "harmony" just sounds wrong. Also, why are people allowed to loudly proclaim "white people are evil" loudly, and broadly, without issues - isn't that also racial disharmony?

shard972 8y ago
Because during this period where global leaders are attempting to wipe out all races and merge us all into "one mocha colored race" there is going to be a lot of conflict so they need to get ahead of it and just ban anything racist out of fears it starts another race riot.
marcus_holmes 8y ago
Why? because Australia and NZ have large immigrant populations (in fact, are large immigrant populations) that contain many races. Racial disharmony causes huge problems, and creates the real possibility of violence, mayhem and bloodshed. As reasonable societies, these things are seen as bad and to be avoided. Consequently, actions that will create racial disharmony are illegal. You can hate on whoever you like, but you can't grab a megaphone, head down to the mall, and encourage other people to hate the same people that you do. I don't know about you, but that seems like a pretty benign restriction to me...
- oska 8y ago
  > but you can't grab a megaphone, head down to the mall, and encourage other people to hate the same people that you do Your example is a misdirection. What you describe is being a public nuisance in a public area, not free speech. I don't want to be subjected to nasty, racist rhetoric in a public space, just as I don't want to be harangued to repent of my sins and "Let Jesus into my life" in the same place. But I support the right of people to be able to express these views in a published form, or in closed spaces such as on a talking tour or in a church. In both cases audiences are seeking to be exposed to these views and are actively going to a place to find them, not having them pushed on them as they go about their ordinary lives.

mbo 8y ago

Also of note is the Australian Bill of Rights. Here's a link to a PDF of it:

seem_2211 8y ago

Agreed. I grew up in NZ and now live in America. There are distinct cultural differences that really do separate the two countries. The need for freedom and privacy (although really is a bit of a joke considering the power of the federal government) is one that's really important to Americans. Kiwis don't really have that inherent distrust of the government in the same way, and our equivalent idea is that we're all more or less equal citizens. That's why gun bans are pretty easy to put through in NZ (the safety of the collective is less important than the personal freedom of the individual), and why America has a political class unwilling to do something like socialize healthcare (even at a regional level). In my experience, if you're selling a political ideal to an American, emphasize personal freedom. If you're selling a political ideal to a New Zealander emphasize fairness.

adventured 8y ago
> and why America has a political class unwilling to do something like socialize healthcare (even at a regional level) I don't see how that's a correct statement. Half of Americans are in some form of government, socialized, healthcare system. Socialized healthcare is not only common in America (a quarter of the population is on fully socialized programs just in Medicaid/CHIP/etc), it's quite popular with about 2/3 of the population and the majority of politicians. The US spends about $650 billion just on the Medicaid + CHIP programs. Republicans hardly dare to go anywhere near Medicaid or Medicare these days. 30-40 years ago, the exact opposite was the case, Republicans (the traditional opposition party to socialized healthcare) frequently, commonly argued against nearly all forms of government healthcare. In the Reagan era, it was routine for prominent Republican politicians to call for privatized alternatives to Medicare. Today they won't dare go near that for fear of voter retribution. The most likely outcome over the next 10-15 years, is Medicaid will see continued expansion up the lower economic tiers and will cover 1/3 of the population on traditional socialized healthcare. Within probably 20 to 30 years, it'll only be the top 1/4 that will still be in the mostly private system. Socialized healthcare is taking over the US by default and necessity, its popularity will only increase by the year with the bottom 2/3 of the economic ladder.

ElCapitanMarkla 8y ago

These “freedom” and “liberties” discussions have been fascinating to read.

sintaxi 8y ago

The American Constitution is the longest standing implemented constitutional document in the world. Clearly they have done something right. The American Constitution isn't optimized for perfect social harmony. Its designed to work and stand the test of time. The New Zealand constitution is only 33 years old - which is peanuts. If it doesn't stand the test of time then your opinion really doesn't hold water does it?

Throwway32 8y ago
The American Constitution is the longest standing implemented constitutional document in the world. Clearly they have done something right. The American Constitution isn't optimized for perfect social harmony. Its designed to work and stand the test of time. The New Zealand constitution is only 33 years old - which is peanuts. If it doesn't stand the test of time then your opinion really doesn't hold water does it? Brandenberg v Ohio dates back to 1969. That was only 50 years ago.
- sintaxi 8y ago
  Say more. You haven't made a point. The American Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788. Thats 231 years ago.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]