[doldge]

If you are a New Zealander, then you should know better. Freedom of speech is NOT an unalienable right in NZ, nor has it ever been.

The ridiculous scare-mongering by some of the sibling comments on this post about this being "the start of the end for NZ" is not representative of: A) New Zealand B) Most countries outside of the US.

(Because it's a continuation of existing policy; That not all speech is protected).

As a society, at some point we have to make the decision: Where do we draw the line with speech designed to incite hate and violence; and where do we draw the line on those that enable that speech to reach the masses?

In the US, the answer has been "We don't". In NZ, the answer has been "some speech is reprehensible and we will not tolerate it." This means there's an expectation that anyone of the scale and influence of Facebook should be able to moderate violent speech as it pertains to NZ (Keep in mind that something like 80% of the countries population is on FaceBook. That's an enormous amount of influence they have on the nation).

I'm also a New Zealander, and I work in tech; I agree with the Government here. Facebook will effectively benefit from this event in multiple instances:

1) It drives engagement with there platform (outrage -> views -> engagement) 2) It's more data for there technical god, which will in turn use it to better sell the people (political/fear-mongering?) adverts.

The easiest solution, and one that I think is entirely reasonable, is to not offer live videos in New Zealand. If they're unable or unwilling to moderate the content with regards to NZ law, and given the scale of there operations in NZ (even if that's small fry compared to facebook's scale in other nations) then it's reasonable for the government to impose restrictions on them.

(More generally, I feel government exists to ensure the collective safety and security of society. NZ's government serves the collective safety/security of the people of NZ; That's their role. If they feel the existence of facebook's live streaming threatens NZ's security, then bringing action against it is the reasonable response.)

[tomp]

> More generally, I feel government exists to ensure the collective safety and security of society.

Do you honestly believe that if FB (and no other platform except self-hosting) offered no live videos (in NZ or worldwide), the shooting would not have happened?

[xupybd]

“If you are a New Zealander, then you should know better. Freedom of speech is NOT an unalienable right in NZ, nor has it ever been”

I do know better. It should be an inalienable right. We probably will pass these hate speech laws. We will suffer for it. The founding fathers of the USA got this one right. Trying to engineer society is not a good idea.

It’s not the governments job to descide what speech is okay and what speech is not.

[claudiawerner]

>It’s not the governments job to descide what speech is okay and what speech is not.

What if that speech is child pornography, or assault and threats, or intellectual property?

[xupybd]

What if that speech is child pornography, or assault and threats, or intellectual property?

Child pornography, is not speech. Should be banned.

Assault, is not speech. Should be banned.

Threats, you are correct threats and incitement to violence should be banned. This is the special case to freedom of speech it results in direct harm or coercion. Harm and coercion should be prevented.

Intellectual property is interesting. Yes the government should be able to enforce contracts. But this raises a good point.

You are correct however the blanked statement "It’s not the governments job to decide what speech is okay and what speech is not." is too simplistic and is incorrect.

There is a better overview that I could provide here: https://www.kialo.com/should-hate-speech-be-legally-protecte...

[claudiawerner]

>You are correct however the blanked statement "It’s not the governments job to decide what speech is okay and what speech is not." is too simplistic and is incorrect.

Why isn't it? We already allow the government to decide many other things, such as what we are allowed to sell (i.e through food safety regulation). Is there any reason why speech is different from other actions that it should have special treatment and be untouchable?

[xupybd]

Speech is verbalisation of our beliefs. Once the state starts dictating what we can believe we lose much of our freedom and liberty. As such any restrictions on speech should be done with extreme care.

I'm pretty libertarian on many of my views. I think the government should have as little influence in peoples lives as possible. That's the only way, that I can see, you can have a society that allows for a truly diverse range of cultures and beliefs living as they desire under one government.

Where the government does need to step in is on interaction between people. Such as enforcing contracts and keeping actors in the markets honest. This doesn't infringe on personal liberty nearly as much as restrictions on speech.

But there are plenty of regulations I disagree with and think people should be left to make their own decisions freely.

Also I'm not sure you understood my concession above. You're question doesn't seem to follow?

[kmlx]

instead of censorship, why not educate your fellow citizens to make the right decision by themselves?