11 ms·

You've got New Zealand using CSAM laws to prosecute people who watched the Christchurch video, Canada using emergency power to freeze protestors' bank accounts,

You've got New Zealand using CSAM laws to prosecute people who watched the Christchurch video, Canada using emergency power to freeze protestors' bank accounts, and the UK with ubiquitous video surveillance and butter knife control... The whole Anglosphere really seems to be in a race to the bottom.

test098 3y ago
[flagged]
- llm_thr 3y ago
  Your post says a lot more about the race to the bottom than OPs.
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  you just need one crazy individual for a shooting, but a whole system of state and private actors (that should've known better) to implement censorship.
  - esperent 3y ago
    This is too narrow a view. The guy wasn't (just) crazy, he was radicalized by an international online far right hate community. I would venture to say that literally no mass shootings, anywhere, ever, has been the result of "one crazy individual". Certainly none of the ones that make the news. There's always a community, however loosely defined, that radicalized them into thinking that murdering people is a viable solution. That level of descent into madness requires support.
    - depereo 3y ago
      There's a direct line between christchurch and jacksonville. They even put the same decorations on their killing implements. There's absolutely a community around these murders.
    - MostlyStable 3y ago
      I'm sorry, but are you arguing that literally no individual ever decides to kill multiple people without being radicalized first? This is an extremely narrow and naive view of the breadth of what humans can and will do.
    - AmericanChopper 3y ago
      > This is too narrow a view. The guy wasn't (just) crazy, he was radicalized by an international online far right hate community. You say that, and maybe it’s true. But it’s impossible for any New Zealander to know that given it’s a crime for any of them to read his manifesto.
      - verve_rat 3y ago
        You are incorrect. If you have a good reason you can view restricted material: https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/resources/items/applying-for-an-exemption-to-show-a-restricted-publication/ https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/resources/items/app...
        AmericanChopper 3y ago
        For starters, I’m certainly right that it is a crime for New Zealanders to read the document, and if an exemption process that individuals could leverage to access it, that wouldn’t change that fact. However, you’ve linked to a process that educators can use to screen restricted films to their students.
      - esperent 3y ago
        > it’s impossible for any New Zealander to know that given it’s a crime for any of them to read his manifesto. No, it's illegal, not impossible. Many illegal things are trivially easy. Besides, we don't need first hand sources to know things beyond a reasonable doubt.
        AmericanChopper 3y ago
        There’s no legal way for any New Zealander to know the content of his manifesto, and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. I haven’t read it, and I’m not especially interested in the topic all together. But all of the commentary I’ve read about it to me seems either massively reductive or highly politicized. I have no certainty at all about the particulars of his motive. I have little interest in how New Zealand is run, but if I did this would be a massive concern for me. For the interested parties, the details of his motives are incredibly important. That was the basis of new liberty-revoking legislation in New Zealand, and you think that New Zealanders should have no reasonable doubt that their politicians and press (who may or may not have even read it themselves) weren’t portraying it in a way that simply suited their own agendas? Believing that the government should be the only party allowed to interpret crucially important information is very undemocratic.
    - lll-o-lll 3y ago
      Nah that’s crap. I can give an easy counter-example. The Port-Arthur massacre in Australia. You know, when we got all the gun laws as a result. One guy, with issues, two guns, 35 dead. Motivation was revenge and fame. No community required. Your statement is just wrong.
      - esperent 3y ago
        What made him desire fame to such a radical degree that he figured shooting people was worth it? Radicalization can take many forms. It's not just religion or racism. And the vast majority of radicalized people don't kill anyone, they just become toxic to those around them and spread the radicalization.
        lll-o-lll 3y ago
        He had a projected IQ of about 66. I don’t know if you’ve engaged with many people with intellectual impairment, but it doesn’t take much for “dumb idea” to gain traction. He wasn’t radicalised, look it up. He was just an evil git that should never have been allowed near a gun.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      There have been a number of mass shootings that predate the Internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S... And even today a number of the shooters had specific targets in mind e.g. fellow students, teachers etc. So driven more by individual rage and easy access to weapons.
      - esperent 3y ago
        I intentionally didn't mention the internet in my comment. That's the main modern source of radicalization, sure. But people found a way before it too. In person, through books and mailing lists, by phone, by tv, whatever.
- true_religion 3y ago
  We are not in a race with criminals. We are actively fighting them. The government on the other hand…
- whatshisface 3y ago
  You are decrying that comment but not Apartheid... so you must support Apartheid. ;)
- soraminazuki 3y ago
  Crime, including murder, has existed since ages. Human civilization has created the justice system to deal with that. Crime existing is no reason to strip away our rights by dismantling due process and the rule of law.
  - verve_rat 3y ago
    But censorship of the Christchurch video is "due process and the rule of law"? I can point you to the New Zealand Act of Parliament that allows this to happen? I can link you to the reporting on the court cases? The fact you don't like it doesn't mean it's not "due process and the rule of law" as decided by the people of New Zealand over the last 70 years or so (a lot of our law seems to date from the 60s or so, I assume this sort of this was discussed a bit in the general zeitgeist before then).
    - soraminazuki 3y ago
      The government making a list of contraband information is fundamentally incompatible with a free society. The fact that it was used to censor the Christchurch video, or any other evil, matters not. Also, individual laws and court cases can very much trample on due process and the rule of law. It doesn't matter how long standing they are. Having parliaments and courts doesn't automatically result in a free society. It requires constant effort by the people to keep those institutions in check. When we fail to do that, then "the race to the bottom" ensues.
      - verve_rat 3y ago
        Ah! Now we are getting to the crux of the matter. You consider a set of values a necessity for a free society. That is (mostly) orthogonal to rule of law. Rule of law might be one of those values, but is not sufficient by itself. As for the other values, you think absolute free speech is necessary for a free society. New Zealand disagrees with you. Edit: the US government disagrees too, actually. So I guess you are not free either? (Assuming your location here.)
        3y ago
firen777 3y ago
> New Zealand using CSAM laws to prosecute people who watched the Christchurch video Can I get a source on that? I can't find what you described with a quick Google search (using "New Zealand CSAM Christchurch" as my search term). I do find some prosecution made against people who distribute the video (one of them with caption "target acquired"), but they were under terrorism-related law. It seems absurd to go after mere viewer of the video, let alone using CSAM law of all laws as the basis of prosecution.
- pseudo0 3y ago
  Here is the text of the law [0]. It defines "objectionable" content with CSAM as the first category, and then a number of other categories that would be First Amendment protected speech in the US. Possession alone carries a 10 year prison sentence, possession with intent to distribute is 14 years. The Christchurch shooting video and manifesto were both classified as objectionable by New Zealand's Chief Censor (I'm not joking, that's actually their job title) [1]. My point was that they are prosecuting people for political and journalistic speech under the same law they use for CSAM, with equally severe penalties. Hope that is a more clear explanation. [0] - https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/latest/DLM313407.html https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/latest/... [1] - https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/news-items/response-to-the-march-2019-christchurch-terrorist-attack/ https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/news-items/res...
  - verve_rat 3y ago
    As my other reply states, this is a complete misunderstanding of the situation in NZ. Either you are ignorant of the NZ context, or wilfully ignoring it. Please stop.
    - pseudo0 3y ago
      Your response below did not address the substance of my argument. I linked to primary sources, people interested in this discussion can go read them and come to their own conclusions.

test098 3y ago

[flagged]

llm_thr 3y ago
Your post says a lot more about the race to the bottom than OPs.
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
you just need one crazy individual for a shooting, but a whole system of state and private actors (that should've known better) to implement censorship.
- esperent 3y ago
  This is too narrow a view. The guy wasn't (just) crazy, he was radicalized by an international online far right hate community. I would venture to say that literally no mass shootings, anywhere, ever, has been the result of "one crazy individual". Certainly none of the ones that make the news. There's always a community, however loosely defined, that radicalized them into thinking that murdering people is a viable solution. That level of descent into madness requires support.
  - depereo 3y ago
    There's a direct line between christchurch and jacksonville. They even put the same decorations on their killing implements. There's absolutely a community around these murders.
  - MostlyStable 3y ago
    I'm sorry, but are you arguing that literally no individual ever decides to kill multiple people without being radicalized first? This is an extremely narrow and naive view of the breadth of what humans can and will do.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    > This is too narrow a view. The guy wasn't (just) crazy, he was radicalized by an international online far right hate community. You say that, and maybe it’s true. But it’s impossible for any New Zealander to know that given it’s a crime for any of them to read his manifesto.
    - verve_rat 3y ago
      You are incorrect. If you have a good reason you can view restricted material: https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/resources/items/applying-for-an-exemption-to-show-a-restricted-publication/ https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/resources/items/app...
      - AmericanChopper 3y ago
        For starters, I’m certainly right that it is a crime for New Zealanders to read the document, and if an exemption process that individuals could leverage to access it, that wouldn’t change that fact. However, you’ve linked to a process that educators can use to screen restricted films to their students.
    - esperent 3y ago
      > it’s impossible for any New Zealander to know that given it’s a crime for any of them to read his manifesto. No, it's illegal, not impossible. Many illegal things are trivially easy. Besides, we don't need first hand sources to know things beyond a reasonable doubt.
      - AmericanChopper 3y ago
        There’s no legal way for any New Zealander to know the content of his manifesto, and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. I haven’t read it, and I’m not especially interested in the topic all together. But all of the commentary I’ve read about it to me seems either massively reductive or highly politicized. I have no certainty at all about the particulars of his motive. I have little interest in how New Zealand is run, but if I did this would be a massive concern for me. For the interested parties, the details of his motives are incredibly important. That was the basis of new liberty-revoking legislation in New Zealand, and you think that New Zealanders should have no reasonable doubt that their politicians and press (who may or may not have even read it themselves) weren’t portraying it in a way that simply suited their own agendas? Believing that the government should be the only party allowed to interpret crucially important information is very undemocratic.
  - lll-o-lll 3y ago
    Nah that’s crap. I can give an easy counter-example. The Port-Arthur massacre in Australia. You know, when we got all the gun laws as a result. One guy, with issues, two guns, 35 dead. Motivation was revenge and fame. No community required. Your statement is just wrong.
    - esperent 3y ago
      What made him desire fame to such a radical degree that he figured shooting people was worth it? Radicalization can take many forms. It's not just religion or racism. And the vast majority of radicalized people don't kill anyone, they just become toxic to those around them and spread the radicalization.
      - lll-o-lll 3y ago
        He had a projected IQ of about 66. I don’t know if you’ve engaged with many people with intellectual impairment, but it doesn’t take much for “dumb idea” to gain traction. He wasn’t radicalised, look it up. He was just an evil git that should never have been allowed near a gun.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    There have been a number of mass shootings that predate the Internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S... And even today a number of the shooters had specific targets in mind e.g. fellow students, teachers etc. So driven more by individual rage and easy access to weapons.
    - esperent 3y ago
      I intentionally didn't mention the internet in my comment. That's the main modern source of radicalization, sure. But people found a way before it too. In person, through books and mailing lists, by phone, by tv, whatever.
true_religion 3y ago
We are not in a race with criminals. We are actively fighting them. The government on the other hand…
whatshisface 3y ago
You are decrying that comment but not Apartheid... so you must support Apartheid. ;)
soraminazuki 3y ago
Crime, including murder, has existed since ages. Human civilization has created the justice system to deal with that. Crime existing is no reason to strip away our rights by dismantling due process and the rule of law.
- verve_rat 3y ago
  But censorship of the Christchurch video is "due process and the rule of law"? I can point you to the New Zealand Act of Parliament that allows this to happen? I can link you to the reporting on the court cases? The fact you don't like it doesn't mean it's not "due process and the rule of law" as decided by the people of New Zealand over the last 70 years or so (a lot of our law seems to date from the 60s or so, I assume this sort of this was discussed a bit in the general zeitgeist before then).
  - soraminazuki 3y ago
    The government making a list of contraband information is fundamentally incompatible with a free society. The fact that it was used to censor the Christchurch video, or any other evil, matters not. Also, individual laws and court cases can very much trample on due process and the rule of law. It doesn't matter how long standing they are. Having parliaments and courts doesn't automatically result in a free society. It requires constant effort by the people to keep those institutions in check. When we fail to do that, then "the race to the bottom" ensues.
    - verve_rat 3y ago
      Ah! Now we are getting to the crux of the matter. You consider a set of values a necessity for a free society. That is (mostly) orthogonal to rule of law. Rule of law might be one of those values, but is not sufficient by itself. As for the other values, you think absolute free speech is necessary for a free society. New Zealand disagrees with you. Edit: the US government disagrees too, actually. So I guess you are not free either? (Assuming your location here.)
      - 3y ago

firen777 3y ago

> New Zealand using CSAM laws to prosecute people who watched the Christchurch video Can I get a source on that? I can't find what you described with a quick Google search (using "New Zealand CSAM Christchurch" as my search term). I do find some prosecution made against people who distribute the video (one of them with caption "target acquired"), but they were under terrorism-related law. It seems absurd to go after mere viewer of the video, let alone using CSAM law of all laws as the basis of prosecution.

pseudo0 3y ago
Here is the text of the law [0]. It defines "objectionable" content with CSAM as the first category, and then a number of other categories that would be First Amendment protected speech in the US. Possession alone carries a 10 year prison sentence, possession with intent to distribute is 14 years. The Christchurch shooting video and manifesto were both classified as objectionable by New Zealand's Chief Censor (I'm not joking, that's actually their job title) [1]. My point was that they are prosecuting people for political and journalistic speech under the same law they use for CSAM, with equally severe penalties. Hope that is a more clear explanation. [0] - https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/latest/DLM313407.html https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/latest/... [1] - https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/news-items/response-to-the-march-2019-christchurch-terrorist-attack/ https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/news-items/res...
- verve_rat 3y ago
  As my other reply states, this is a complete misunderstanding of the situation in NZ. Either you are ignorant of the NZ context, or wilfully ignoring it. Please stop.
  - pseudo0 3y ago
    Your response below did not address the substance of my argument. I linked to primary sources, people interested in this discussion can go read them and come to their own conclusions.