• 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?

dudalb said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, the US also does not consider all of those examples as protected by the Forst Amendment, and one reason is that downloading and distributing creates a market for such things.
 
Samson said:
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.
Click to expand...

Huh? There’s at least enough grounds for thinking that this kid knew about the shooter’s plans and to propogate the video. I think the police will likely know even more.
 
dudalb said:
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.
Click to expand...


I think you are missing the point that the people making them wouldn't bother making them if there weren't people purchasing them.

So it tends to work better if you go after both
 
Darat said:
Why on earth do you think it is "the left" in NZ who wants to stop the video being viewed?
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence decent minded right wingers don't also object, (or are you being sarcastic)?

I don't see that this shooter has more than a tiny handful of supporters in NZ.
 
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...

The quote is preposterous for more than that reason.

The case was over whether the Espionage Act could apply to someone distributing pamphlets that argued for opposing the draft. Not by being violent. Not by resisting or evading. By such means as, say, getting the law that created the draft repealed.

This was a "clear and present danger" to the nation!

It's a dramatic example of censorious overreach and was overturned decades ago.

Holmes and other justices later would reverse their rulings on similar cases, Holmes objection starting when a group of Russian immigrants (probably even "refugess" in our modern sense) passing around pamphlets in a language nobody else spoke was just going too far for him.

Sadly, it was overturned so that the KKK could be openly hostile, inflammatory, and even invoke violent rhetoric unless it "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Sometimes I'm amazed our species has made it this far.

ETA: Forgotten is a later quote from Holmes: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
I would say go after the people making them, rather then trying to track down everybody who views them.
Click to expand...

No-one; literally no-one is trying to do that. What they are trying to do is track down who is distributing them.

A person is found with 10,000 child pornography videos and 100,000 child pornography photos on his computer.

"But officer, I have never actually watched or looked at any of them"

Does not cut the mustard IMO

dudalb said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, Germany has a very good model for this, and its overwhelmingly supported by their general public.

You may not trust the government to decide, but ultimately they don't get to decide, we do; we vote them out if we don't like what they are doing (we have a three year electoral cycle, so we get to toss out our leaders more frequently if they don't meet our expectations)
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
As far as I can tell, 8Chan, 4Chan, Kiwi Farms, Bitchute and Daily Stormer are all blocked in NZ and Australia.

If true, then that is great.
Click to expand...
It is not true.
Certain ISPs in Australia have said they'll block them.

Mine has not - I check DS and Livelink, but not the others as I got the impression from other posters here that I really did not want to be anywhere near these sites.
 
dudalb said:
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.
Click to expand...
Every law has the line drawing problem, sometimes it's harder to draw than others.
 
angrysoba said:
Huh? There’s at least enough grounds for thinking that this kid knew about the shooter’s plans and to propogate the video. I think the police will likely know even more.
Click to expand...

His personal life and his online life are going to be turned upside down and inside out. It would not surprise me if investigation into him will turn up many more leads into the white supremacy movement in NZ. A few of its members will be crapping themselves about now.

I will not lose a moment's sleep over any of this.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
And yet, some of the surviving victims have chosen to do just that!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/ch...urch-shooter-offered-forgiveness-and-defiance

http://muslimcouncil.org.hk/i-dont-...-killed-by-the-christchurch-mosque-terrorist/

Just reading those articles gave me a lump in my throat. I wonder how many of "us" white folks would be moved to do this if the roles were reversed?

Actually... I don't!
Click to expand...
You realise that this generalisation comes across as borderline racist? I'm not quite sure that you meant it that way.

There are a huge number of examples of "white folks" forgiving atrocities against themselves and their families. Even some of the family members of victims of the 911 attacks have come forward with similar sentiments.
 
dudalb said:
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.
Click to expand...
So are there or aren't there?

And I'd love to see you provide any evidence that most people here have boundless faith in government.
 
The Atheist said:
A good guide as to how much interest people are taking in other people's comments is when you have every link and piece of information repeated in the same thread.

I'm not sure whether that's the 7th or 8th example of things I posted a page or so ago being repeated.
Click to expand...

I did check by keywords. I guess I didn't look far back enough.
 
Darat said:
So are there or aren't there?
Click to expand...

I was originally going to say now but during with one of those there-a-lot-of-idiots-out-there conversations with my kid I came to the realization that the people most supportive of censorship are the people who are most likely to influenced by the content they want to see banned.

So yea, I'm going to join in on the book burning. :)
 
cullennz said:
That is arguable....
Click to expand...
The thread came to a conclusion, but Atheist may still have avoided the homework.
Robin Bain is scientifically logically, alibi related and unequivocally the killer. Onstensibly there would be no reason for the Bain family to have had a use for this weapon for pest control, and all 22 semis should be subject to this ban in the light of that mass murder crime.

That is my response to the government response to the slaughter in Chch and I realise there is a better thread.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom