3 ms·

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

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.

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.