8 ms·

> 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 G

> 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.
    - totetsu 3y ago
      the substance of your argument is that you don't understand that different countries/societies/cultures/jurisdictions have different historical experiences/legal traditions/ founding principals/values/politics that make words like censorship very contextual.
      - esyir 3y ago
        Gotcha, censorship of stuff you don't like isn't censorship
        verve_rat 3y ago
        I don't think anyone in this whole discussion claimed that? Just people disagreeing about where to draw the line on what censorship is acceptable and what is not. The US and NZ draw that line in different places. It seems to me that Americans in this discussion are trying to win some kind of moral argument, where as I'm just explaining how the world is, not how it ought to be.
Nition 3y ago
NZ didn't prosecute anyone for only watching the video. Some were prosecuted for sharing (edit: or possessing) it though. One ended up with jail time[0]. [0] Philip Arps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Arps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Arps
- pseudo0 3y ago
  Charges were laid in 35 cases [0], and a 16 year old pleaded guilty to possession of the video [1]. I'm not sure if the disposition of the other 33 cases has been determined or reported on by news outlets. [0] - https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/397953/charges-laid-in-35-cases-over-sharing-of-video-of-christchurch-terror-attacks https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/397953/charges-laid-in-3... [1] - https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/crime/16-year-old-admits-possessing-footage-of-christchurch-mosque-shooting/ https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/crime/16-year-old-admits-p...
  - Nition 3y ago
    Thanks, I've updated my comment to say "sharing or possessing". Although I doubt anyone got prosecuted for possessing without ever sharing - how would you get caught?
    - pseudo0 3y ago
      They were attempting to subpoena tech companies and websites where the video was reuploaded, demanding user information and IP logs for anyone who accessed the video. I'm unsure of how many video hosts actually complied, given how many companies don't have a presence in NZ. Apparently at least a few, given how they were able to charge at least 35 people. From there, it's a basic request to the ISP for subscriber information, and a day or two later the police are seizing the poor schmuck's electronics. If they find christchurch.mp4 or manifesto.pdf, that's a 10 year prison sentence.
      - totetsu 3y ago
        Given that "white identity extremism" is one of the biggest domestic threats, that seems fair enough.
verve_rat 3y ago
You won't get a source because it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of New Zealand law and attitudes towards censorship. In NZ we have the Classification Office. This is the government organisation that classifies publications (books, movies, games, even technically websites IIRC?). The Classification Office issues a rating (PG, M, R16, R18, etc.) and it is a crime to provide restricted publications to people that are under the restricted age. It takes quite a lot to get a publication outright banned. In some cases the Chief Censor will issue it a "only at film festivals and academic settings" rating. Note: only egregious distribution tends to get any attention, let alone prosecution. People importing objectionable material for sale, that sort of thing. Back in the day when video stores were still a thing, 15 year olds would rent R18 porn and no one went to jail. Yes, CSAM is the sort of thing that would be rated objectionable (I.e. banned) but the NZ censorship regime is not "CSAM laws", it is much broader and more comprehensive than that. In this case the Chief Censor banned the Christchurch shooting video because of the harm that its distribution would do to the community [1]. This sort of decision is normal and expected in NZ. The rest of the world does not look like the US. We don't need to bend laws past their original intention when we already have a functional system for dealing with these kind of issues. (I'm sure someone will pipe up to tell me I'm a slave in Stalinist Russia because I can't watch snuff films.) [1]: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/397953/charges-laid-in-35-cases-over-sharing-of-video-of-christchurch-terror-attacks https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/397953/charges-laid-in-3...
- Forgotthepass8 3y ago
  You have a chief censor and you seem proud of this. Did Orwell know about you?
  - Nition 3y ago
    This is a very harsh response. You can disagree and still have a civil discussion. Many cultures are represented on Hacker News and we can all learn something from each other. Edit: Okay, not quite as bad now after you edited out the last line. Thanks.
    - 3y ago

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.
  - totetsu 3y ago
    the substance of your argument is that you don't understand that different countries/societies/cultures/jurisdictions have different historical experiences/legal traditions/ founding principals/values/politics that make words like censorship very contextual.
    - esyir 3y ago
      Gotcha, censorship of stuff you don't like isn't censorship
      - verve_rat 3y ago
        I don't think anyone in this whole discussion claimed that? Just people disagreeing about where to draw the line on what censorship is acceptable and what is not. The US and NZ draw that line in different places. It seems to me that Americans in this discussion are trying to win some kind of moral argument, where as I'm just explaining how the world is, not how it ought to be.

Nition 3y ago

NZ didn't prosecute anyone for only watching the video. Some were prosecuted for sharing (edit: or possessing) it though. One ended up with jail time[0]. [0] Philip Arps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Arps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Arps

pseudo0 3y ago
Charges were laid in 35 cases [0], and a 16 year old pleaded guilty to possession of the video [1]. I'm not sure if the disposition of the other 33 cases has been determined or reported on by news outlets. [0] - https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/397953/charges-laid-in-35-cases-over-sharing-of-video-of-christchurch-terror-attacks https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/397953/charges-laid-in-3... [1] - https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/crime/16-year-old-admits-possessing-footage-of-christchurch-mosque-shooting/ https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/crime/16-year-old-admits-p...
- Nition 3y ago
  Thanks, I've updated my comment to say "sharing or possessing". Although I doubt anyone got prosecuted for possessing without ever sharing - how would you get caught?
  - pseudo0 3y ago
    They were attempting to subpoena tech companies and websites where the video was reuploaded, demanding user information and IP logs for anyone who accessed the video. I'm unsure of how many video hosts actually complied, given how many companies don't have a presence in NZ. Apparently at least a few, given how they were able to charge at least 35 people. From there, it's a basic request to the ISP for subscriber information, and a day or two later the police are seizing the poor schmuck's electronics. If they find christchurch.mp4 or manifesto.pdf, that's a 10 year prison sentence.
    - totetsu 3y ago
      Given that "white identity extremism" is one of the biggest domestic threats, that seems fair enough.

verve_rat 3y ago

You won't get a source because it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of New Zealand law and attitudes towards censorship. In NZ we have the Classification Office. This is the government organisation that classifies publications (books, movies, games, even technically websites IIRC?). The Classification Office issues a rating (PG, M, R16, R18, etc.) and it is a crime to provide restricted publications to people that are under the restricted age. It takes quite a lot to get a publication outright banned. In some cases the Chief Censor will issue it a "only at film festivals and academic settings" rating. Note: only egregious distribution tends to get any attention, let alone prosecution. People importing objectionable material for sale, that sort of thing. Back in the day when video stores were still a thing, 15 year olds would rent R18 porn and no one went to jail. Yes, CSAM is the sort of thing that would be rated objectionable (I.e. banned) but the NZ censorship regime is not "CSAM laws", it is much broader and more comprehensive than that. In this case the Chief Censor banned the Christchurch shooting video because of the harm that its distribution would do to the community [1]. This sort of decision is normal and expected in NZ. The rest of the world does not look like the US. We don't need to bend laws past their original intention when we already have a functional system for dealing with these kind of issues. (I'm sure someone will pipe up to tell me I'm a slave in Stalinist Russia because I can't watch snuff films.) [1]: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/397953/charges-laid-in-35-cases-over-sharing-of-video-of-christchurch-terror-attacks https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/397953/charges-laid-in-3...

Forgotthepass8 3y ago
You have a chief censor and you seem proud of this. Did Orwell know about you?
- Nition 3y ago
  This is a very harsh response. You can disagree and still have a civil discussion. Many cultures are represented on Hacker News and we can all learn something from each other. Edit: Okay, not quite as bad now after you edited out the last line. Thanks.
  - 3y ago