Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by baconhigh 2646 days ago
All the sites in the article were hosting illegal (in NZ) content - they were temporarily blocked till the video (of a terrorist killing innocent people) was taken down.

Nobody needs to see that.

It's not about free speech.

The sites in question are used to spread hate, racism, violence and bigotry.

Why are we tolerating this kind of media in our lives? Why are we letting people upload this?

It is not free speech. It is targeted hate.

3 comments

"Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened."

― Dwight D. Eisenhower

I have yet to see the video, don't really intend to as I've seen enough other material, but for you to say "Nobody needs to see that" is to deny people an education about a grotesque part of human nature. Denying that education leads to denial of the nature itself. Nothing good comes from denying that reality.

The more that people understand about what leads to these kinds of attacks the better. But we aren't going to get much depth of truth from the kinds of sanitized messaging coming from corporate media.

The manifesto is a window into the mind of the killer. It's a distasteful document, but a strong culture that trusts its people would encourage citizens to read it and understand the danger.

As it stands, authorities really don't trust people and instead prefer to nanny them by deflecting from any issues that lurk below the surface for fear of empowering another lone attacker.

This is a poor strategy because it will surely backfire. Instead, frank discussion is most conducive to lasting peace. But after seeing the response of the NZ government I hold little hope of that happening.

I think the American legal stance on this is right - it is not up to governments or people like you to decide what media other people consume, just because you fear they might be negatively influenced.

Hate speech is free speech that you happen to not like.
Except this is hate speech. Or are you saying it isn’t
I dislike it, so it's hate speech, of course!

But I tend to believe that I should not have the power to determine what can or cannot be said, and that no one else should have that power either.

If you were to say, make a pro-ISIS video, or Tweet, would you expect to remain unmolested by the authorities in the United States? All societies set boundaries on what is acceptable speech.
I would expect making a pro-ISIS video/tweet to leave me without additional molestation from the government, yes. Probably wouldn't stay up on YouTube, but other sites don't seem to have a problem with such things. (stereotypically, that would be LiveLeak)

You can check out the list of exceptions to free speech in the US here [0]. I disagree with a number of them, but an "ISIS is awesome and this is why" video would fall under none of them. (the same goes for a "Hitler was awesome" video, a "Trump is awesome" video, or a "Trump is a fascist and we need to rise up in violent rebellion" video)

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

I would expect making a pro-ISIS video/tweet to leave me without additional molestation from the government, yes

If you made pro-ISIS materials, you can expect the US government to closely monitor you, and quite likely attempt to entrap you.[1]

If you made large numbers of pro-ISIS videos, even if you were a US citizen, there would be a strong possibility that you would be killed [2]

[1] https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2018/07/fbi_arrest_of_clevel...

[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-a...

This is not hate speech, this is a snuff film
That's fair. Of course, I haven't heard many "censor the internet" calls in regards to 3guys1hammer, though that may just be because of the age. (3guys1hammer was the first that came to mind, though the quantity of ISIS and Cartel execution videos is also rather high)