Belz...
Fiend God
Right. ONLY downloading is enough for Uke. And when you watch something on the internet, you have to download it temporarily at the very least. That's exactly what he said.
Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?
- Thread starter The Atheist
- Start date
Right. ONLY downloading is enough for Uke. And when you watch something on the internet, you have to download it temporarily at the very least. That's exactly what he said.
Belz...
Fiend God
You know that's racist, right?
Why is it acceptable to say things like that against this particular group of people but not others? If we want to stop bigotry, shouldn't we, you know, stop doing that? We have to stop seeing people as representatives of whatever made-up group we imagine and instead view them as individuals.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Okay, let me bring it back to the topic and explain my reasoning here.
We are talking about New Zealand banning the viewing, downloading and distribution of the mosque killing videos that appear to have been made as though he were LARPing an FPS, such as Doom or Wolfenstein.
There are a few reasons why New Zealand might do this. I agree with one or two reasons and not with others.
1) The video re-victimizes the families and survivors (I think this may even be the official reason given).
2) The video may lead to copycat attacks (someone watching it may want to do what they see in the video).
3) This is part of an increasing trend of, for want of a better term, snuff movies such as those produced by Mexican cartels, ISIS head choppers and psychopaths reflecting a demand for such content.
I think that the demand/market for these types of videos needs to be taken as seriously as that of child pornography because of the demonstrable harms that exist in the making of these videos.
Of course, I understand the arguments that "why should the government be able to tell me what to view?" but I think these are weak arguments unless:
a) you feel the same way about viewing, downloading and distributing child pornography (i.e you think it is none of the government's business)
or
b) you can demonstrate that the harms caused by, say, chopping someone up with a chainsaw live on video, hacking someone's head off, or rampaging around a mosque and shooting men, women and children dead, are not to the same level as the exploitation of children.
Somehow, I don't think many people would really take (a) or (b), so I would be interested in what other arguments they have for arguing for their right to watch snuff films.
I also think the Nirvana Fallacy argument of "Well, you can't stop everyone watching it" also falls if you compare the ways in which avid seekers of child pornography will mask their identities online as well.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Most war documentaries are not terrorist propaganda videos with graphic violence. Do you know any that could be classified as terrorist videos?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Just as banning right-wing extremist videos is part of the larger effort to prevent and stop right-wing extremist terror attacks.
We seem to have no problem taking down and banning ISIS videos of beheadings and the like. Why not other examples of extremism?
Last edited:
Generally speaking i would ere on the side of restraint and not make it a crime just to watch terrorist propaganda, just like i wouldn't make it a crime to watch propaganda from an enemy state during a war for example.
In the battle of hearts and minds, when you are trying to maintain political legitimacy, openness is a great testament to ones strength and confidence. We don't need to punish our people for daring to hear our enemies, rather we only need to demonstrate to them why we are right.
We won't be able to convince everyone, just as even the death penalty wouldn't discourage everyone from viewing propaganda made by forces hostile to us. We don't need to. We are strong enough to weather the blows of terrorist mass-murderers and we ought to be strong enough to find and stop those who try to incite terrorism without treating our people like children who can't, or rather aren't allowed, to decide what they want.
Last edited:
That all defends on how you define propaganda. Is the mosque shooting video biased ? Yes, of course. Is it false or misleading ? No, it depicts an incident perpetrated by a highly disturbed individal.
Graphic and disturbing ? You want it, you got it.
Kill 'em All: American War Crimes in Korea | PBS America
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,483
War documentaries generally do not show gore - like actual blood, guts and brains.
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 14,103
I'm not that interested in arguing for or against banning this particular type of violent video (not least because most countries don't have the same near-absolutist position on freedom of speech as mine does, for better and worse), but I think drawing analogies between this and child pornography is dumb.
Does the mosque shooting video show actual blood, guts and brains ?
This is the story
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213914
not for watching but distributing.
"The charge relating to distributing an objectionable publication is dated March 15, the day of the mosque shootings, court documents show.
The second charge, of making an objectionable publication, alleges the offence took place between March 8 – 15.
The teen was initially charged with publishing insulting material with intent to excite hostility or ill will against a group of persons on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origins. That charge was withdrawn today and replaced by the two new charges.
The maximum sentence for each of the charges against the 18-year-old is 14 years' jail."
Unless the kid has some horrible history I am guessing he will get off on a warning.
Think it is more just sending a message over the video.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,483
No, lots of blood and close high definition jerking of bodies as bullets rip through. Sad faces including children look right at the shooter and then are extinguished.
It isn't anything like any war documentary.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
This does not look like just some kid innocently sharing a video he found online. If the offence took place before March 15, then its looking like he was making, sharing and distributing white extremism material before the terror attack took place.
If this is the case, then whatever sympathy I might have had for him has completely evaporated.
Last edited:
Holding him in custody is a serious move. I think he coincidentally posted the mosque in the week prior, and could obviously have the same foreknowledge as the rest of New Zealand, none.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,483
A young woman is lucky to have made it out of the mosque and she is running. He sees her from a considerable distance and starts shooting. She disappears around a corner and she might be safe. Here we go now over there and nope she's on the ground. Still plenty alive but can't get up and is waving one hand in the air pleading Help Me over and over. We walk right up to her and put several rounds into her. Now she is quiet and her final location is right in front of his car. A minute later he leaves, driving straight over her body.
It isn't anything like any war documentary.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
I don't.
1. It documents the commission of a crime (like child porn)
2. It actively promotes and attempts to incite more of the crime it documents (like child porn)
3. It necessarily exploits its subject(s) (like child porn)
4. The video is intended to titillate, and serves a prurient interest (in gore, in white supremacist violence) (like child porn)
5. The video serves no useful educational purpose (like child porn)
That's not an attempt at legalese; that's just explaining how the video is indeed quite analogous to child porn in my own words.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Who decides what is extremism and what is not? Who Will Watch The Watchers?
When they take away your freedom, they always have wonderful sounding reasons for doing so.
I am proud to be an absolutist when if comes to free speech.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,401
Meanwhile, the hell of his continued existence will be starting to dawn on Tarrant:
No access to media
Unable to converse with another human being - I don't imagine the guards indulging him
Locked inside a secure compound in a jail full of guys wanting to kill him
24-hour surveillance
And the two major brown gangs in NZ have showed forcefully where their loyalty lies, with Black Power already joining in prayers, hakas and vigils and the Mob now providing security at the Hamilton mosque.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/ch...rd-at-local-mosque-in-support-of-muslim-kiwis
Even I'm not cynical enough to think this is all a ploy to gain acceptance in middle NZ - I think the bros are genuinely very angry. Aside from not exactly being pals with white supremacist types, the gangs are outraged by the attack and would fight for the ability to take Tarrant out.
I trust that never happens, because the punishment is the perfect answer to the crime - leave the poor darling entirely alone for years and years, constantly looking over his shoulder in case a guard has left the door open for the five seconds needed to get in with him.
No access to media
Unable to converse with another human being - I don't imagine the guards indulging him
Locked inside a secure compound in a jail full of guys wanting to kill him
24-hour surveillance
And the two major brown gangs in NZ have showed forcefully where their loyalty lies, with Black Power already joining in prayers, hakas and vigils and the Mob now providing security at the Hamilton mosque.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/ch...rd-at-local-mosque-in-support-of-muslim-kiwis
Even I'm not cynical enough to think this is all a ploy to gain acceptance in middle NZ - I think the bros are genuinely very angry. Aside from not exactly being pals with white supremacist types, the gangs are outraged by the attack and would fight for the ability to take Tarrant out.
I trust that never happens, because the punishment is the perfect answer to the crime - leave the poor darling entirely alone for years and years, constantly looking over his shoulder in case a guard has left the door open for the five seconds needed to get in with him.