[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.