[jjeaff]

You don't see any difference here? One government is trying to keep their people from seeing violent and disturbing content. The other is trying to keep their people from learning about violent and disturbing things that very government is commiting themselves to its own people.

I don't think the NZ government is scooping up and murdering political disedents.

[drdeca]

The government in general shouldn’t be trying to prevent people from being able to see violent or disturbing content.

[AnonTechDrone]

I'm an ex-USSR resident and I see a good bit of difference between a liberal society where free speech is seen as a basic human right and a budding Communist nation with a "Chief Censor" who gets to dictate the bounds of acceptable discourse.

[m0zg]

  >> I don't think the NZ government is scooping 
  >> up and murdering political disedents [sic].

That's because the Overton window isn't quite there yet. Continue down this path and eventually it will shift. The basic truth of the matter is: it's much, much easier to rule if there's no freedom of speech. That's why it's the typically the first thing to go before the rest of the personal rights. Makes things super comfy for the ruling class: someone says something you don't like? Just throw them in jail, it's for their own good. The UK is much further down this path already: there you can end up in jail for posting wrongthink on your Facebook page or filming _outside_ the court during grooming gang proceedings.

[antidesitter]

> One government is trying to keep their people from seeing violent and disturbing content.

That should be up to the people, not the government.