• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

a_unique_person said:
As I have explained already the video is designed to radicalise the impressionable. Just as ISIS did so well with their beheading videos.

This isn't just free speech but you can't tell fire in a crowded theatre. This is teaching you how to set the theatre on fire.
Click to expand...

If I can be radicalized, then it is my right to be able to view it. Free speech is about changing a person in a way others do not like.
 
dudalb said:
I am truly shocked at how many people want to throw Freedom of Speech out the window.

I have now come to the opinion that the left is just as hostile to freedom of Speech as the right.
Click to expand...
As I said to Stout : I do have to ask, are there no videos that you think someone shouldn't be able view, possess or distribute under threat of being arrested, and if convicted imprisoned?
 
dudalb said:
Oh, I know that.

I will never watch that video, but I think when you talk about sending somebody to prison for ten years for mere posseion of it, you have slid down the slippery slope a long way.

And on both sides it is a bunch of self righteous jerks, who take it upon themselves to decide what people can cannot read and watch.

And it's all for the public good. It is always for the Public Good. when they come to take away your freedom, they always have wonderful sounding reasons for doing so.

Don't seem much difference between a religious fundy saying you can't watch stuff because it will send your soul to hell, or a someone on the left saying you can't watch something because it will "hurt society." Both are vague abstracts. In the end, both just want power, and see free speech as a threat to it, and so mcome up with great sounding reasons for taking it away.
Click to expand...
Why on earth do you think it is "the left" in NZ who wants to stop the video being viewed?
 
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
This is the woman I described in post #1089. She wasn't returning to the mosque to check on her husband. She was escaping the grounds but didn't make it.

Another false story is now very common and a mural has been painted to honor a man. He is described variously as tackling or attempting to tackle or take the gun of the shooter during the massacre at Al Noor. In actuality, he tried to run down a hallway (his only escape path) without the shooter seeing him. It was necessary to run near the shooter to get to the hallway and he chose to do it while the shooter was looking away. But he must have been heard because the killer turns and shoots him just as he begins his run down that hallway. This is the only person to move towards the shooter. The stories say he tried to tackle but instead he was trying to get out.
Click to expand...

uke2se said:
How do you know this?
Click to expand...

Probably the video. I had made the same interpretation when I watched it once but would be reluctant to make a definitive statement regarding the "tackler's" actions, but on viewing it seemed like he was trying to get by the shooter.

Apparently the news thinks otherwise regarding the Al Noor tackler.

It also seems a tackler managed to get a gun from the shooter, this at the Linwood mosque. Maybe the stories are getting crossed.
 
Several recent posts have included links to videos with graphic violence. Please note that NSWF tags should be used for all such videos. The proper form is [nsfw=graphic violence]URL[/nsfw]. These tags must be used even if the poster explains beforehand that the video is not safe for work. This is because many browsers will automatically show a still image from the video whether the reader wants to watch the video or not.

Please take further note that such videos or images may still run afoul of Rules 2 and/or 9, and using nsfw tags does not excuse that. In general, the videos must be germane to the conversation and not be posted to shock or annoy. Historical records are usually acceptable. The poster, however, is required to use good judgment. If in doubt, please err on the side of not linking to the material.

Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
Stankeye said:
Probably the video. I had made the same interpretation when I watched it once but would be reluctant to make a definitive statement regarding the "tackler's" actions, but on viewing it seemed like he was trying to get by the shooter.

Apparently the news thinks otherwise regarding the Al Noor tackler.

It also seems a tackler managed to get a gun from the shooter, this at the Linwood mosque. Maybe the stories are getting crossed.
Click to expand...

I honestly do not believe you nor anyone could get a detailed enough impression from a single viewing to make the claim that the story is wrong. I'm getting the impression that some people (not you) are re-watching this monument to the slaughter of innocents - made by someone who wanted it to be watched - again and again, seemingly in order to find fault in the stories of traumatized survivors. I find this particularly disgusting.

Again, not you.
 
uke2se said:
I honestly do not believe you nor anyone could get a detailed enough impression from a single viewing to make the claim that the story is wrong. I'm getting the impression that some people (not you) are re-watching this monument to the slaughter of innocents - made by someone who wanted it to be watched - again and again, seemingly in order to find fault in the stories of traumatized survivors. I find this particularly disgusting.

Again, not you.
Click to expand...

Absolutely this!

In the sheer panic and extreme duress these people were experiencing as they were being massacred, some of the lucky survivors might have got a few minor and inconsequential details wrong. Big fat so ******* what?

The vast majority of people are not interesting in those inconsequential details. 50 innocent, peaceful men, women and children were brutally murdered in a place, a city and a country where they ought to have felt safe. Nothing else matters, least of all, the piffling details the survivors might have been mistaken about.

I would ask everyone here to PLEASE STOP reviewing that video, and PLEASE STOP posting links and descriptions of the details of what happened in it.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Oh, I know that.
I will never watch that video, but I think when you talk about sending somebody to prison for ten years for mere posseion of it, you have slid down the slippery slope a long way.
And on both sides it is a bunch of self righteous jerks, who take it upon themselves to decide what people can cannot read and watch.
And it's all for the public good. It is always for the Public Good. when they come to take away your freedom, they always have wonderful sounding reasons for doing so.
Don't seem much difference between a religious fundy saying you can't watch stuff because it will send your soul to hell, or a someone on the left saying you can't watch something because it will "hurt society." Both are vague abstracts. In the end, both just want power, and see free speech as a threat to it, and so mcome up with great sounding reasons for taking it away.
Click to expand...

Now that you have delivered Sermon on the Mount Pompous, why not engage with people who have been making arguments that it is at least reasonable to restrict the download and distribution of at least some videos. You call yourself a free speech absolutist, but does this mean you also think there should be no restrictions on:

Terrorist material
Snuff videos
Child pornography
?
 
Belz... said:
Not to derail the discussion but I've heard conflicting things on that. The fire in a theatre scenario was part of a court opinion, not an official ruling on a case.
Click to expand...

It was an analogy from Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case against pacifists distributing leaflets opposing American involvement in World War One. In other words, the Supreme Court was arguing that protest that should surely have been legitimate was not - after all - the court (or OWH Jr) argued that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater to create a panic.

It is, as Christopher Hitchens says, a bulkshit example.
 
The Atheist said:
Right, the mystery of the 18 year old and his charges are becoming a little clearer. He is charged with distributing copies on the Friday, but details of another charge have been released:



That tends to indicate he was in contact with Tarrant and exhorted him to do it. He may well have been responsible for that specific mosque being attacked first.

I think maybe he will also require protective custody and can expect to be in jail for a very long time if he is deemed any kind of accessory.
Click to expand...
I think it is a coincidence as my working model.
 
Darat said:
As I said to Stout : I do have to ask, are there no videos that you think someone shouldn't be able view, possess or distribute under threat of being arrested, and if convicted imprisoned?
Click to expand...

Meh, after reading that mod box above, I don't want to offend any delicate sensibilities.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
That strengthens my view that it is not.
Click to expand...
I don't see why. I assume it is the primary mosque in the South Island.
Total and comprehensive secrecy, and containing all predictive information between his ears, looks like the secret and powerful weapon.
 
angrysoba said:
Now that you have delivered Sermon on the Mount Pompous, why not engage with people who have been making arguments that it is at least reasonable to restrict the download and distribution of at least some videos. You call yourself a free speech absolutist, but does this mean you also think there should be no restrictions on:

Terrorist material
Snuff videos
Child pornography
?
Click to expand...

I would say go after the people making them, rather then trying to trac kdown everybody who views them.
My big problem is where do you draw the line? Who decides what is allowable and what is not? You really have faith in bureaucrats being able to do that.
I just don't have the boundless faith in government that most people here do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom