4 ms·

Western censorship laws tend to be really old, New Zealand's had such a law since 1857 (around about when we first started passing laws, before that the UK's pr

Western censorship laws tend to be really old, New Zealand's had such a law since 1857 (around about when we first started passing laws, before that the UK's probably applied) - and are largely aimed at obscenity (not political discourse) I'd challenge you to show where the NZ Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act allows censorship because of a particular political point of view

manquer 4y ago
How would you or me know they didn't sensor political speech on Facebook or another social media platform? Are they clearly documenting how many times what content is being exactly censored why and then transparently publishing that to everyone ? Is the publisher of content on social media being notified they are censored in NZ ? Do they have a right to appeal ? How will they appeal if they don't get notified ? Is the appeal process simple and inexpensive enough for independent content creator to avail ? For censorship to work, the system of censorship should be very objective, clear and transparent and with avenues for inexpensive recourse. NZ and all commonwealth countries which have similar systems are not close to that. These are system as you say were not designed for social media so have no business censoring social media unless they have adapted ( which they have not). Inefficient bureaucracy also suppresses free speech not just conservative or authoritative regimes.
- m4x 4y ago
  There's a register for censorship decisions made in NZ: https://register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/Pages/Screens/DDA/WelcomePage.aspx https://register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/Pages/Screens/... As you can imagine, most of the decisions seem to be focused on CSAM. But it also lists non-video censorship. I'm not sure I'd call it highly visible, but it's very easy to find and search. I have no idea what the disputes process looks like, but I'd be shocked if they didn't have one.
  - scanny 4y ago
    Not much in terms of descriptions, e.g. for the video game „Postal 2“ you can see it has been banned but there is no reason provided. https://register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/Pages/Screens/DDA/PublicationDecisionInformationPage.aspx https://register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/Pages/Screens/... Albeit most of the entires under banned when searching without a filter are self explanatory.
- quixoticelixer- 4y ago
  > Are they clearly documenting how many times what content is being exactly censored why and then transparently publishing that to everyone ? Yes, they do
Rebelgecko 4y ago
It looks like most of the political censorship in NZ was to suppress anti-war publications, which has been less of an issue since that particular law was passed. Other censorship laws blocked movies like All Quiet on the Western Front as well as communist publications. The only political point of view I've noticed that was censored under that particular act (based on 5 minutes of perusing Wikipedia) was supporting euthanasia, which is illegal in NZ
- jimjimjim 4y ago
  It used to be illegal, but New Zealand had a referendum in which people voted to legalize euthanasia.

manquer 4y ago

How would you or me know they didn't sensor political speech on Facebook or another social media platform? Are they clearly documenting how many times what content is being exactly censored why and then transparently publishing that to everyone ? Is the publisher of content on social media being notified they are censored in NZ ? Do they have a right to appeal ? How will they appeal if they don't get notified ? Is the appeal process simple and inexpensive enough for independent content creator to avail ? For censorship to work, the system of censorship should be very objective, clear and transparent and with avenues for inexpensive recourse. NZ and all commonwealth countries which have similar systems are not close to that. These are system as you say were not designed for social media so have no business censoring social media unless they have adapted ( which they have not). Inefficient bureaucracy also suppresses free speech not just conservative or authoritative regimes.

m4x 4y ago
There's a register for censorship decisions made in NZ: https://register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/Pages/Screens/DDA/WelcomePage.aspx https://register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/Pages/Screens/... As you can imagine, most of the decisions seem to be focused on CSAM. But it also lists non-video censorship. I'm not sure I'd call it highly visible, but it's very easy to find and search. I have no idea what the disputes process looks like, but I'd be shocked if they didn't have one.
- scanny 4y ago
  Not much in terms of descriptions, e.g. for the video game „Postal 2“ you can see it has been banned but there is no reason provided. https://register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/Pages/Screens/DDA/PublicationDecisionInformationPage.aspx https://register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/Pages/Screens/... Albeit most of the entires under banned when searching without a filter are self explanatory.
quixoticelixer- 4y ago
> Are they clearly documenting how many times what content is being exactly censored why and then transparently publishing that to everyone ? Yes, they do

Rebelgecko 4y ago

It looks like most of the political censorship in NZ was to suppress anti-war publications, which has been less of an issue since that particular law was passed. Other censorship laws blocked movies like All Quiet on the Western Front as well as communist publications. The only political point of view I've noticed that was censored under that particular act (based on 5 minutes of perusing Wikipedia) was supporting euthanasia, which is illegal in NZ

jimjimjim 4y ago
It used to be illegal, but New Zealand had a referendum in which people voted to legalize euthanasia.