An American Response to Censorship

bcr229

bcr229

Snakes Are Cool
Staff member
Staff
Endowment
Resident Demon
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
332
Points
83
Location
Inwood, WV USA
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/2019-03-17-new-zealand-police-we-would-like-to-preserve-any-posts-and-technical-data-including-ip-addresses-email-addresses-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/zeal...que/story?id=61742270&cid=social_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/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html#DLM225513)

It is limited by The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act of 1993 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/55.0/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.
 
WebSlave said:
There are so darn few black and white answers these days.
Click to expand...

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.
 
One thing NZ does have is the guts to immediately act to ban "Military-style" semi-automatic weapons in response to this attack ... Good for them.


"On 15 March our history changed forever. Now our laws will too. We are announcing action today on behalf of all New Zealanders to strengthen our gun laws and make our country a safer place," Ardern said at a press conference in the capital Wellington.
The announcement came after the country's cabinet agreed to overhaul the law and ban military-style semi-automatics and assault rifles 72 hours after the Christchurch attacks.
"Every semi-automatic weapon used in the terror attack on Friday will be banned," Ardern continued, adding that she hoped the law would be in place by April 11. "This legislation will be drafted and introduced in urgency."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/20/asia/new-zealand-christchurch-gun-ban-intl/index.html
 
I saw the video. The shooter was monstrous in his actions and the destruction of life was deeply saddening.

That said, I am in a way glad I could see it. I find it important for some people to choose to feel pain regarding painful things at times. It is upsetting. I should feel upset about it. To feel the abyssal "wrongness" of it as strongly as I could besides an unseen abstraction that does not reach me as well like a written account might (no matter how well written) is the value that the video brought to me. I think that some things, for some people, should involve not looking away. Especially for the nightmarish yet real. Not right for everyone, but right for me.
 
I think it's a tricky question. Personally I don't want images of actual murder in my mind's eye.

I don't believe in censorship as a concept, but I do feel that there is such a thing as over-exposure to violence that leads to desensitisation and even glorification of such acts, and diminishes the atrocity of violence in peoples' minds.

New Zealand is still a gentler place than many parts of the developed world, and I am certain that they are correct in not broadcasting video of the actual shooting.
 
I have not seen the video and I don't have any real desire to, but I tend to agree with Nick on this one. There are things that cannot be described with words and can only be truly understood by bearing witness to or experiencing them. Not all people can handle such a gut check, but it is sometimes an irreplaceable tool for confirming one's own humanity and morals.

Being this as it is, I do not support wholesale censorship of most things, nor do I support the video being removed from public view. If someone doesn't want to watch it, I believe the onus is on them as an individual to not watch it. I believe you end up with a weaker individual if you shelter them too much from the world (just like all the freshmen I've seen in the college towns I've lived in who get taken advantage of or end up partying their way out of school because they were too sheltered at home with mommy and daddy).

And as far as NZ's newly announced "military-style" weapons ban is concerned, I don't agree with it at all. I know there are cultural and political differences between NZ and the US, but in our case I believe it's ridiculous to think any of the other protections afforded to us in our bill of rights can stand for long without the 2nd enumerated and protected right. Don't get me wrong, a peaceful world where we'd never have to resort to violent force to defend ourselves (from any manner of threats) would be ideal, but human nature certainly makes that seem unlikely to ever be the case. This might be coming from my own slightly jaded outlook, but there are truly wicked people in this world and I don't think that will ever change. Taking away the legal right to an efficient defense of one's own life or the lives of others seems pretty backwards in the wake of events like this (and yes, I do think an armed and reasonably well trained civilian could have at least prevented so many people from being killed in Christchurch).

In summary, I suppose you could say I'm not the type to defer my responsibilities to a ruling or governing body who thinks they know what's best for me (or you)...
 
While the first clause in this conjunction is undeniably true, even obvious:

wvaherp said:
but there are truly wicked people in this world and I don't think that will ever change.
Click to expand...

...the second clause is arguably one of the most widely held and dangerous self-fulfilling prophesies around.

We -- collectively -- haven't put much energy at all into understanding why people are wicked. Even psychology has changed over time from 'the study of the mind' into 'the study of human behavior', and so we don't even have a scientific discipline that could help us figure out what's behind people's wicked behavior.

We've thrown around many ideas, though: some people say that if everyone loved Jesus with all their heart, they would be good. But there are too many counterexamples of (apparently) true believers who have done horrifying things.

Some people say if everyone had enough money, they'd be good. But there are too many counterexamples of well-off people who have done horrifying things.

Ban guns; too many counterexamples of non-firearm violence (worse by far than mass shootings, even. For every firearm death in the US, twenty cases of child abuse occur. Twenty.).

Ban drugs; makes things worse.

Ban alcohol; made things worse.

So while it is true that we haven't changed, it is also true that we haven't really tried to get underneath behavior and figure out why people (me, you, everybody) are like this. And if we did, would we do anything about it? We can't even figure out how to get roads fixed -- are we going to change the fact that each of us approaches each other from behind a shield and with a dagger in hand? Do we have the guts?
 
And so another country that hasn't figured out that you can't defend your constituents from monsters by removing one of the well known HIGHLY effective methods of deterring and fighting them.

:face_palm_02:

Making schools gun free zones hasn't worked out too well, now has it? So who in their right mind would think making an entire country a gun free zone is going to create that peaceful utopia with everyone sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya they are being promised? If anyone believes that, I have a very valuable bridge in New York I am offering for sale to you. Cash only, please.

:face_palm_02: :face_palm_02: :face_palm_02:
 
WebSlave said:
If anyone believes that, I have a very valuable bridge in New York I am offering for sale to you. Cash only, please.
Click to expand...

I will have my assistant send you a money order. I'll add $50 for keeping it in my favor. Please provide your mailing address and final price.
 
Socratic Monologue said:
While the first clause in this conjunction is undeniably true, even obvious:



...the second clause is arguably one of the most widely held and dangerous self-fulfilling prophesies around....
Click to expand...


This is all very well put and true. I don't disagree with you at all (not that I believe you were doing so with my post). It really just highlights the state that we as a society or species are in. Not that I think it's any different than any historical era, in all honesty. While you're absolutely right about it being a self fulfilling prophecy to say I don't think it will ever change, that doesn't mean I don't wish it to. It certainly seems to be part of our nature in general though.

We really should put effort into "facing our demons" and figuring out where the underlying issues are, but as you say "do we have the guts?" I personally believe there is at least a glimmer of wickedness in most, if not all, people and the fear many feel of having those thoughts or feelings brought into the light is part of what prevents us from moving forward. It really helps explain the "shield and dagger" you describe. If I'm correct in this, it also seems to help outline how this apparent war on anything deemed as possibly offensive is making things significantly worse on a multitude of fronts...

I've actually gone through about 5 revisions with different examples of how over-sensitization of some people and conversely the natural push-back by others against being told what you can and can't say or do combined with seemingly natural tendencies of humans towards doing "bad things" equals inordinately worse things, but I'm having trouble making sure they're clear and coherent at the moment (it's Friday, lol).

All in all, I think that we suffer from a complex of trying to make things better without fully understanding them (let alone the unintended consequences) in the first place. This obviously gets us into quite a bit of trouble as a species.

Though there are plenty of cases where I sit back and wonder if some of these "unintended" consequences of policies were in fact unintended at all...

Obviously this is all a massive oversimplification of a subject that is likely as old as our sentience and more complex than most care to bother with, but it's still a more productive conversation than one about trying to regulate/legislate our way into morality or safety from those who would do us harm.


Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on anything or even all that well-read or educated. I'm just some hack who tries to rationalize and think things through on occasion... :shrug01::shrug01:
 
WebSlave said:
And so another country that hasn't figured out that you can't defend your constituents from monsters by removing one of the well known HIGHLY effective methods of deterring and fighting them.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, here is one example of how a good guy (girl) with a gun couldn't stop a bad guy with a gun, one year later:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-shooting-sydney-aiello-kills-herself-n986266

Sometimes the monster gets inside your child's head, and then all the deterrence in the world won't help. What a horrible waste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top