[sebthedev]

Those websites were distributing material that was illegal under New Zealand law (content relating to the recent terrorist attack).

Any person in New Zealand who possesses objectionable content is liable for imprisonment for up to 10 years. Distributing the objectionable content can result in imprisonment for up to 14 years.

The ISPs were simply declining to distribute or possess the objectionable content (which would have be illegal for them to distribute or possess).

https://www.dia.govt.nz/Censorship-Objectionable-and-Restric...

[layoutIfNeeded]

Reminds me of the first episode of Black Mirror, when the British PM is preparing for his act with the pig, his aides try to calm him by saying that the parliament have just passed a law that prohibits the possession of the material that’s about to be broadcasted.

[cam_l]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Anthem_%28Black_M...

See also..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate

[incompatible]

Do ISPs in NZ have no safe habour provisions? If one of their customers downloads or uploads something illegal, the ISP can be prosecuted too?

[Taniwha]

I don't believe so in this case, in NZ these laws were written with film in mind - more generally the safe-harbour laws are largely written for copyright issues on behalf of the content people

[akerro]

Should youtube be banned for storing 100 000s of copies of WTC attack?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wtc+9%2F11+foot...

[robocat]

Incorrect.

The ISPs blocked within hours. It wasn't declared objectionable until much later.

There are catch all rules for objectionable content, but our ISPs weren't applying those rules to those websites even though they carry much equivalent content.

I don't know if they blocked at request of the politicians or police. But it is very possible the ISPs management and techos just did it. These are not huge organisations!