4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.