An American Response to Censorship
 

A few days ago there was a mass shooting in New Zealand. Along with the typical expansion of gun controls, there was also an attempt by the government to censor information about the incident.

One web forum owner, upon receiving an emailed request from the NZ cops for information about members of its web site, posted this response:

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/2019-0...ses-etc.54376/

FWIW banning video and content from the Internet never works. Google the "Streisand Effect" if you want to know why.

I am sure I missed something somewhere with this, but I read the opening post in that thread concerning the request from NZ police no less than four (4) times and the way I read it all the police were doing was asking the website owner to RETAIN any info concerning said posts for a probable investigation. The purpose behind it was just in case the posts might be subject to being deleted, under standard maintenance or through administrative action, they wanted to prevent that possibility before they could formally and officially file a request for information related to such posts.

I don't see this as any sort of censorship at all. Quite the reverse, actually. They were asking that the posts REMAIN publicly available and NOT be deleted.

I only read through page 5 of the thread (got tired of the chest thumping), so maybe something more enlightening was posted later on there.

Anyway, if I am missing something, please let me know.

In NZ it is illegal to post the video or the manifesto made by the shooter on the internet (no First Amendment in NZ). Someone has already been arrested for it. The penalty is a max 10 years in prison.
https://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/zeala...l_twitter_abcn

The email to the forum owner was a request to retain data so that a warrant could be issued to determine who in NZ had posted links to the video and/or the shooter's manifesto on his forum.

Ah, OK. Now that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

I wonder how long it will be before everything posted on the internet will have to go through government pre-screening?

So where can I find a copy of this video? :hehe:

I would try Liveleak first.

I haven't watched it. Really don't care to.

New Zealand does have a "First Amendment" -- it is section 14 of their Bill of Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...html#DLM225513)

It is limited by The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act of 1993 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM313407.html).

That act prohibits the distribution of video "if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good." The act outlines the specifics of the prohibition, and notes that certain videos that contain such content must be age restricted, which likely the charged 22 year old did not do. I'm no lawyer, but this certainly seems to be the most apparent violation.

It seems to me to be hard to criticize an attempt to keep such material out of the minds of kids (if that is the nature of the violation). Anyway, if you read the NZ legislation it isn't very unlike that in the US, which limits freedom of speech on the grounds of hate speech, incitement to violence, certain kinds of pornography, etc, etc.

I'm not sure that using 'censorship' to describe this is accurate; that word better describes limiting speech that damages the majority government (think China), or offends some group's moral sense (think Muslim theocracies).

Yeah, I guess there cannot really be *absolute* freedom. Once anyone is given the power to determine what might be objectionable to someone else, you are well on your way down that slippery slope. Certainly there are things I would rather not see nor hear. Heck, I have already seen images, read and heard things I wish I could scrub out of my head. But do I wish someone had forcibly prevented me from being exposed to them? Well, that is a tough call. How would I know that person would always make the correct call for me?

Lord knows I have seen the need to put my own brand of censorship into this site. And that is always a tough call, even when you are making the calling. My opinions will not be right for everyone. Maybe even no one else but myself. There are so darn few black and white answers these days.

I tend to think that there have never been black and white answers, but in the past people were somewhat more likely to think that there were, and so had gotten some things very, very wrong. That last clause puts things in black and white terms, though, so...:shrug01:

I wasn't voicing any sort of judgement on the NZ case, though I do think that if seeing a video pushes people into violence, there are much, much deeper problems that should be focused on and that we don't even have the collective guts to talk about. I just wanted to point out the facts about NZ legislation, and my opinion that censorship is such a horrifying thing that I don't think this case is bad enough or of the right sort to justify calling it that.

Addendum: I just read the first couple bits of the Kiwifarms link (I'd only looked at the ABC News link previously). One of the dark back rooms of the internet, there. I'm going to try to figure out how to prevent my computer from going there ever again...

I have yet to actually see the video everyone is talking about, but sure enough a lot of people talking about the "seek out an destroy" censorship going on over it. I keep reading the statements saying that it is being censored for the sake of "protecting consumers". Really? Protect them from what? Themselves? If such consumers aren't already over the edge because of violence in movies, TV shows, and FPS games, I have no idea what else would make them teeter over the edge.

Seriously, the next time this planet stops, I'm getting off.