[sebthedev]

Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to?

Off the top of my head, the government has: used the existing regulatory system to temporarily halt sales of the sort weapons used in the terrorist attack; introduced legislation into parliament to permanently halt sales of the sort of weapons used in the attack, which will proceed through the regular legislative process; announced plans to investigate how the attack was not prevented by security services; and facilitated memorial services for victims.

[aphextron]

>Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to?

Namely the banning of the manifesto. Blocking images of violence is one thing. But making the leap to blocking ideas is on a whole other level. I’m all for de-platforming. No one should be forced to host your vile content, legal or not. But for the government of your country to ban a specific string of characters as a criminal matter is terrifying.

[colejohnson66]

Why is banning a string of characters terrifying, but not a string of bits?

[oska]

In my opinion aphextron was being overly reductionist in describing the manifesto as just a string of characters.

The manifesto was a presentation of a political viewpoint (and perhaps a call to action - I don't know, I haven't read it). The manifesto qualifies as speech.

The video was a record of a criminal act of great violence. I wouldn't classify the video as speech. (In contrast, a fictional portrayal of the same acts but made with actors and no-one dying would be speech).

[telesilla]

New Zealand, and many other parts of the world, do not share the U.S.'s "free speech" concept. Speech is not protected and yet the country is high on the freedom of press index.

https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/new-zealand/

[aphextron]

>Speech is not protected and yet the country is high on the freedom of press index.

For now.

The lessons learned and recorded through 2000 years of Western history, starting with the Greeks and culminating in the American revolution, was that such things can never be relied upon unless guaranteed by law.

[oska]

I'm not from the USA and I didn't make any reference to the US in my comment. I've already dealt with this false argument elsewhere in the thread. [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19473330

[baud147258]

I've seen purported extracts of the manifesto, they were mostly trolling

[incompatible]

So they haven't actually done anything to try to restrict the shooting video, at least on foreign websites (it may be illegal under existing NZ law?)

It suppose it wouldn't actually be hard for them to seize the copyright (perhaps with a new law if required) and start issuing DMCA takedowns or threats of lawsuits.

[erentz]

Common misconception that this is directed by the government, like Mubarak ordering the internet cut off or something. The Office of Film and Literature classification reviews and classified media material in NZ, similar to how the MPAA does for films in the USA. It can also classify materials as “objectionable” at which point they become illegal to possess or trade (except by certain request, eg if you’re an academic wanting to study it). This is extremely rare. It must meet the definitions under the law that the office operators under. And it is free from political influence because the role is separated and operated independently as a commission. It is checked by the ability of the judicial branch to evaluate these cases against the definition in the law. And the law can be changed by the citizens electing new representation and giving mandate for that to be done.

The takedowns that Facebook and YouTube have been performing started immediately after the attack loooooong before the video was classified as objectionable. This is because Facebook and YouTube do not want to distribute these videos. That’s all.

[gruez]

>Common misconception that this is directed by the government [...] The Office of Film and Literature classification reviews and classified media material in NZ, similar to how the MPAA does for films in the USA.

But the Office of Film and Literature Classification is literally a government agency, according to Wikipedia. Maybe it's staffed by bureaucrats rather than elected officials, but it's still government censorship. MPAA, on the other hand, is a trade association, and compliance with its ratings is purely voluntary.

>It must meet the definitions under the law that the office operators under. [...] It is checked by the ability of the judicial branch to evaluate these cases against the definition in the law.

I wouldn't count on this, given how vague the the law is, and how useless constitution is (see comment elsewhere in this thread).

>And the law can be changed by the citizens electing new representation and giving mandate for that to be done.

That's a final backstop, but if there's active government censorship going on, how can the results of the subsequent election be trusted?

[GeorgeDewar]

In fact, such material is already illegal to possess or trade. The official classification just clarifies that after the fact.

The law that makes this material objectionable is the same one that makes child pornography illegal, and it should be obvious that it wouldn't work very well if each video involving sex with children had to be classified as objectionable before it became illegal.

The criteria are here:

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

[rgbrenner]

Is that a typo in your first sentence? Saying the government is NOT directing an action, when it's a government agency makes no sense. It would be like me saying the US government doesn't have any control over boeing's planes because that's the FAA's job.

And the government is literally arresting people for distributing the video.

I'm really struggling to see how this could be construed as a non-government action.

[versteegen]

"The Government" (in NZ at least, I imagine also in many other countries with parliamentary systems) is very often used to mean the parties/politicians in charge. Short for "the governing parties," basically. Clearly that's what was meant: that arrests can not be directed from the top.

[peterashford]

"Independence from central government The Classification Office is an independent Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act 2004, and so it performs its functions at 'arms length' from central government.

As a Crown entity the Classification Office is accountable to the New Zealand public - it must perform its functions efficiently, transparently, and in a financially responsible manner.

The Minister of Internal Affairs is responsible for managing the Government's relationship with the Classification Office."

[incompatible]

That's more or less what I thought. So it's not even illegal in NZ unless the Office of Film and Literature Classification actually bans it?

Edit: I see now they have banned it, and the "manifesto" too. https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/ch...

[shard972]

Maybe putting a teen in jail, now facing 10 years for sharing the video with an edgy comment.

[rgbrenner]

Not just this 18 year old you referenced: https://gizmodo.com/18-year-old-arrested-in-new-zealand-for-...

But also these people:

22 year old: https://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/zealand-man-22-arrested-alleg...

44 yo male: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object...

This woman was arrested for hateful commentary (not distributing the video, just comments): https://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=12214654&ref=t...

[gruez]

Bingo. I find it strange how all the replies to aphextron's top level comment automatically assumed it was about the assault rifle ban, and didn't even consider the government's ban on distribution of the shooter's video and manifesto. Maybe it's OP's fault for not being more specific, but the replies are definitely opting for the "easier" argument.

[jen729w]

Do you have a reputable source for this? All I can find is from fringe sites.

[gruez]

random search:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6820769/Teen-accuse...

>The accused teenage Facebook poster appeared in Christchurch District Court on Monday and was granted an interim name suppression order, but he was denied bail by Judge Stephen O'Driscoll.

https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/18/14/49/christchurch-shoot...

[doldge]

actions have consequences; whether those actions take place online or not. If what he did was hate speech, then it makes sense to charge him with it.

That he did it online, or didn't realise that saying vile things would have undesirable consequences shouldn't excuse the behaviour.

(N.B I think he should be charged with something, but I don't think prison time is a fair response to his actions).

[myrandomcomment]

Hate speech, is protected speech in my mind, no matter how abhorrent. The founding fathers of the USA had a reason for the 1st amendment. You milage may vary in your location, but at the end of the day, censorship of speech is very very slipper slope. This type of speech needs to be countered by education and by people standing up and saying "we will not listen", not a bureaucrat. Allowing the government to censor what you do not like is an aberration of personal responsibility.

[doldge]

that's a very American stance to take. I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that Americans value individual liberty above all else.

That isn't the case in NZ; Most of the population trusts the government and value's collective good above individual liberty, the policies and responses to events like these are born out of our culture and focus on those values. It's apples & oranges with the US culture of valuing individual liberty.

I do feel that to say that it's solely personal responsibility is to disregard easily mislead demographics (specifically the youth). Of course the plan is to educate them so that they can reason these situations out for themselves, but until then it's societies duty to look out for them, and to ensure they're not being exposed to unnecessarily harmful views.

Personally, I believe some people can't actually be reasoned with all that well; You can try, but eventually you exhaust yourself without ever changing there mind; What's the saying about "the world changes when old men die"?

As a final counter-point. My understanding is that Osama Bin Laden never personally attacked the US. It was his hate speech that incited violence, it was his ideology that was his weapon. The response to that was to condemn a man who was not US citizen to death without ever having a trial. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been killed; I'm asking why one incitement of violence, of hate speech; is acceptable and should be allowed when another is not? (keeping in mind that both are in relation to a terrorist attack).

[Throwway32]

that's a very American stance to take. I don't mean that as an insult; I mean that Americans value individual liberty above all else.

It's a modern American stance that dates back to the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. The reason that this particular standard for free speech, formulated by the US Supreme Court has permeated segments of the English-speaking world is an example of the cultural dominance of the United States, and internet culture.

Besides bin Laden, another even more striking case is the cleric, a US citizen, who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen because of his advocacy of violence. And no sane person who values their freedom, in the English-speaking west, would dare advocate on behalf of ISIS today.

No society in human history has permitted absolute free speech, and the United States doesn't either.

[myrandomcomment]

Individual liberty is a huge part of it, however it is not the final arbitrator of society. It is an act of the individual that inspires change. One person can make a difference and change to course of history. They do so by having the ability to speak freely, or baring that the ability to speak and then except the consequences of that speech, in order to insure change (MLK, Ghandi, etc.) Regulated speech can lead to a dictatorship. Look at the Nazis or the USSR. The first thing to go is the right to disagree without threat of imprisonment or worse. I do understand that you trust this government (I have visited NZ a number of times and I am a huge rugby fan). But that is this government. It is not a good idea to set the precedent on the limitation of speech as it can be used in the future to limit it by those that do not have the ideals of the government you currently support. The regulation of speech is a slippery slope. Only the collected efforts of the people can counter those that speak hate. Making it illegal only strengthens those that hate, giving them another boogie man for their own cause. Yes, I am being an idealist. Oh, for what it is worth, half of my family is Muslim and they share my thoughts on this. That half came here because of the limits on their freedom.

Bin Laden was directly responsible for the planning and support for attacks on the USA and others. Wikipedia is a good place to start with links to items, including transcripts etc.

I emotional agree it is hard to trust the masses to do the right thing, never the less, we have to. It’s the only way. Everything else leads to opression.

[Nasrudith]

Personally I think hate speech is a term which cold use more precision - I personally term it the rather uncatchy '<ethnic> intimidation' with ethnic substitute for the appropriate other term as it encompasses the parts of it that cause harm.

To use an example of an obscure half-joking religion just say calling Pastafarians a bunch of stupid useless colander-heads is hateful speech but not hate speech. Saying that we should all go out tomorrow and lynch Pastafarians would be religious intimidation and captures where the wrong is - not the speech but the actual 'verbal assault'.

[robocat]

> The founding fathers of the USA had a reason for the 1st amendment.

When the 1st amendment was written the US had approximately the same population as new Zealand does now (4M versus 5M). New Zealand is about the size and popolation of Oregon.

Our political landscape is wildly different, simply because we are so much smaller, and we don't have states.

Our politicians and our government are not "them": they are us. This is the general feeling towards the Muslim community too We all (including our politicians) see the affects of policy upon our friends and family, because most New Zealanders have direct connections to a range of backgrounds.

[Throwway32]

The founding fathers of the USA had a reason for the 1st amendment.

The US Supreme Court only set the modern boundaries for freedom of speech in Brandenburg v Ohio in 1969.

[int_19h]

The question isn't whether what he did was "hate speech", but whether the definition of "hate speech" that can be utilized for this purpose makes any sense in a free society.

[jjcm]

Actions do have consequences, and the New Zealand government should be aware of this. Sentencing an 18 year old to 14 years in prison has the consequence of making them a non-functioning member of society in the future. This is not a reparative way to respond to what he did.

[versteegen]

Nobody's been convicted of anything yet. And certainly not 14 years in prison. Mentioning the maximum sentence for a class of crime is hyperbole.

[NZ_Matt]

Guh, I'm done with the internet for today. No one has been sentenced to 14 years in prison for this and they won't be, the lack of informed people participating in these discussions kills me.

[Rebelgecko]

Perhaps nitpicky, but I believe the potential ban and existing re-categorization of certain types of weapons would only ban 2/5 of the firearms he used.

[pryce]

All of the firearms he used were banned.

[Rebelgecko]

Are you sure? I thought the ban only applied to semi-automatic guns, not pump or lever action.

[pryce]

The new restrictions also restrict shotguns with detachable magazines that can hold over a specific number of rounds, but I retract my statement as I have not been able to establish exactly which model of shotgun the perpetrator used.

[Rebelgecko]

He also had a lever action rifle although I don't know if he used it