7 ms·

> 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 pe

by 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.
  - Taniwha 8y ago
    Under NZ law the snuff film was 'objectionable' from the moment it was created, the censor's job is essentially to just confirm that - the ISPs are not only stopping the film from being passed around by snuff fetishists but also protecting their own arses from potential legal issues if any of their customers access the illegal content
- myrandomcomment 8y ago
  Great, please show me the act of parliament done in the light of day that made this illegal? The video SHOULD NOT BE WATCHED. It stand for everything I as a human abhor. However it is slippy slope, that leads to no good end.
  - huntie 8y ago
    I don't know what you mean by "act of parliament". This video should most definitely be watched in order to understand this event in full. No description of what happened can impart upon you the brutality of watching him go back in to double tap the victims. There is a severe lack of understanding of the impact of our actions when we choose to censor events like this.
    - KidComputer 8y ago
      People lost their lives terribly, that much can be understood without watching it. What more do you really gain by watching the video? Do you have some morbid curiosity that you need to satisfy? Do you think we should disregard the feelings of the survivors or those who lost someone close? How do you think they feel about the video being shared? How would you? Do you think they deserve respect and solidarity? If so, how does sharing the video contribute to that?
      - throwaway8879 8y ago
        If someone wants to watch it, regardless of the intent, they should be allowed to. Disrespect should not be illegal. That's silly.
        KidComputer 8y ago
        That's not even an argument. So people should be allowed to watch child porn? Plenty of parallels between the two. People are hurt in the filming of both. It's damaging to the survivors. It feeds into the fetishes of those who would watch such a thing (it's a snuff film). In the case of this film I could argue that potential perpetrators could study the film for their own plans.
crumpets 8y ago
>a far more representative and democratic parliament that any US government due to the use of proportional representation. any US government? Do you understand that many state-level governments are proportionally representative?
int_19h 8y ago
With respect to their semi-auto ban, I think the most questionable part of it was where the executive unilaterally banned them via Order in Council, so as to not wait for the legislative process (which is still ongoing). I'm frankly amazed that any modern democracy grants its executive an authority to outright promulgate binding legislation like that.
- Taniwha 8y ago
  They didn't ban them they changed the license requirements to own them, something that they can do legally by regulation under the current law The ban will be done in parliament over then next week or so, looks like 95%+ of the currently elected MPs will vote for the change, all major parties in parliament, left and right, have publicly said that they agree with the changes. Remember that less than one person in 15 in NZ has a gun license, and even fewer own semi-automatics, it's a small minority affected by this change, it's not all that controversial (in NZ)
hestefisk 8y ago
Free speech doesn’t mean the right to insult or spread unlawful things online. Whilst I do find it concerning that the ISPs are self-censoring, blocking access to a video of an act that contradicts all of our democratic rights (freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom of thought) can hardly offend anyone. Free speech is the right to express an opinion without being penalised. Left wing and right wing lunatics are free to distribute their wicked thoughts online, just as the US gun lobby and alt-right fanatics are free to publish whatever they like on the fifth amendment. Fine with me. It doesn’t hurt or ‘harm’ anyone. A video of a fascist wacko shooting 50 people down is not freedom of speech. It’s illegal and sick. Don’t confuse the two.
- bufferoverflow 8y ago
  > Free speech doesn’t mean the right to insult Actually it does. Even hate speech is free speech in the US. > or spread unlawful things online That's not a free speech violation then. The video in question is not classified, doesn't break any laws, it just depicts a horrible act. Should we make all war documentaries illegal too? > Free speech is the right to express an opinion without being penalised So you just contradicted your first point. If I, for example, say "you're an idiot", it's an opinion, it's protected speech (in the US at least). AU doesn't have free speech except political speech, and has been making some Orwellian moves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#A... NZ has the Bill of Rights of 1990 that states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." So it seems that any censorship would directly contradict that.
  - hestefisk 8y ago
    Good point. I agree with you.
  - bitwize 8y ago
    Most countries with a bill of rights, including Canada and presumably NZ, have a "notwithstanding clause" that allows the government broad power to abrogate those rights if it feels it is in the public interest to do so. The USA is the sole major exception.

by erentz 8y ago

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.
- Taniwha 8y ago
  Under NZ law the snuff film was 'objectionable' from the moment it was created, the censor's job is essentially to just confirm that - the ISPs are not only stopping the film from being passed around by snuff fetishists but also protecting their own arses from potential legal issues if any of their customers access the illegal content
myrandomcomment 8y ago
Great, please show me the act of parliament done in the light of day that made this illegal? The video SHOULD NOT BE WATCHED. It stand for everything I as a human abhor. However it is slippy slope, that leads to no good end.
- huntie 8y ago
  I don't know what you mean by "act of parliament". This video should most definitely be watched in order to understand this event in full. No description of what happened can impart upon you the brutality of watching him go back in to double tap the victims. There is a severe lack of understanding of the impact of our actions when we choose to censor events like this.
  - KidComputer 8y ago
    People lost their lives terribly, that much can be understood without watching it. What more do you really gain by watching the video? Do you have some morbid curiosity that you need to satisfy? Do you think we should disregard the feelings of the survivors or those who lost someone close? How do you think they feel about the video being shared? How would you? Do you think they deserve respect and solidarity? If so, how does sharing the video contribute to that?
    - throwaway8879 8y ago
      If someone wants to watch it, regardless of the intent, they should be allowed to. Disrespect should not be illegal. That's silly.
      - KidComputer 8y ago
        That's not even an argument. So people should be allowed to watch child porn? Plenty of parallels between the two. People are hurt in the filming of both. It's damaging to the survivors. It feeds into the fetishes of those who would watch such a thing (it's a snuff film). In the case of this film I could argue that potential perpetrators could study the film for their own plans.

crumpets 8y ago

>a far more representative and democratic parliament that any US government due to the use of proportional representation. any US government? Do you understand that many state-level governments are proportionally representative?

int_19h 8y ago

With respect to their semi-auto ban, I think the most questionable part of it was where the executive unilaterally banned them via Order in Council, so as to not wait for the legislative process (which is still ongoing). I'm frankly amazed that any modern democracy grants its executive an authority to outright promulgate binding legislation like that.

Taniwha 8y ago
They didn't ban them they changed the license requirements to own them, something that they can do legally by regulation under the current law The ban will be done in parliament over then next week or so, looks like 95%+ of the currently elected MPs will vote for the change, all major parties in parliament, left and right, have publicly said that they agree with the changes. Remember that less than one person in 15 in NZ has a gun license, and even fewer own semi-automatics, it's a small minority affected by this change, it's not all that controversial (in NZ)

hestefisk 8y ago

Free speech doesn’t mean the right to insult or spread unlawful things online. Whilst I do find it concerning that the ISPs are self-censoring, blocking access to a video of an act that contradicts all of our democratic rights (freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom of thought) can hardly offend anyone. Free speech is the right to express an opinion without being penalised. Left wing and right wing lunatics are free to distribute their wicked thoughts online, just as the US gun lobby and alt-right fanatics are free to publish whatever they like on the fifth amendment. Fine with me. It doesn’t hurt or ‘harm’ anyone. A video of a fascist wacko shooting 50 people down is not freedom of speech. It’s illegal and sick. Don’t confuse the two.

bufferoverflow 8y ago
> Free speech doesn’t mean the right to insult Actually it does. Even hate speech is free speech in the US. > or spread unlawful things online That's not a free speech violation then. The video in question is not classified, doesn't break any laws, it just depicts a horrible act. Should we make all war documentaries illegal too? > Free speech is the right to express an opinion without being penalised So you just contradicted your first point. If I, for example, say "you're an idiot", it's an opinion, it's protected speech (in the US at least). AU doesn't have free speech except political speech, and has been making some Orwellian moves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#A... NZ has the Bill of Rights of 1990 that states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." So it seems that any censorship would directly contradict that.
- hestefisk 8y ago
  Good point. I agree with you.
- bitwize 8y ago
  Most countries with a bill of rights, including Canada and presumably NZ, have a "notwithstanding clause" that allows the government broad power to abrogate those rights if it feels it is in the public interest to do so. The USA is the sole major exception.