[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...