6 ms·

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 tem

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?
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    Is that a typo in your first sentence? Saying the government is NOT directing an action, when it's a government agency makes no sense. It would be like me saying the US government doesn't have any control over boeing's planes because that's the FAA's job. And the government is literally arresting people for distributing the video. I'm really struggling to see how this could be construed as a non-government action.
    - versteegen 8y ago
      "The Government" (in NZ at least, I imagine also in many other countries with parliamentary systems) is very often used to mean the parties/politicians in charge. Short for "the governing parties," basically. Clearly that's what was meant: that arrests can not be directed from the top.
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

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?
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  Is that a typo in your first sentence? Saying the government is NOT directing an action, when it's a government agency makes no sense. It would be like me saying the US government doesn't have any control over boeing's planes because that's the FAA's job. And the government is literally arresting people for distributing the video. I'm really struggling to see how this could be construed as a non-government action.
  - versteegen 8y ago
    "The Government" (in NZ at least, I imagine also in many other countries with parliamentary systems) is very often used to mean the parties/politicians in charge. Short for "the governing parties," basically. Clearly that's what was meant: that arrests can not be directed from the top.

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