Censorship and the Mosque Shooting
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
Bloody sad day when guilt by association has become acceptable to many.
I dont think some people give any thought to where this sort of thing leads. It is like history teaches nothing.Because these new leftists don't mind fascism when it's fascism they agree with.
-
@Kirwan said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
Bloody sad day when guilt by association has become acceptable to many.
I dont think some people give any thought to where this sort of thing leads. It is like history teaches nothing.Because these new leftists don't mind fascism when it's fascism they agree with.
They just want the power. Nothing new there.
-
-
Does not surprise me in the least that Wizard would be a kindred spirit. I’ve often wondered if he’d get away today saying some of the politically incorrect things he was saying 30-35 years ago. My hot girlfriend (at the time) was a bit of a sjw fledgling and was horrified that I was so entertained by the guy. (“There’s never been a war that wasn’t started by a woman.”) He was hilarious.
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
He was hilarious.
He was indeed. A very smart dude too, got to a fair level of tertiary study. Provocative, and not frightened of really poking the borax at people. Was burning money to mitigate inflation in the 70s I believe- a really interesting character
-
@Siam said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
@MajorRage no.
Care to elaborate? I actually find this debate genuinely interesting & cannot believe it escalated the way it did.
I cannot reconcile that a psychology professor with his background could be considered naive about what he was getting himself into with that picture. Whether he was right or wrong to do it, has never really been what I've been debating.
@Siam said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
@MajorRage ok so if I get a team of people to find an online aftermatch photo of an All Black next to a fan with an "inflammatory " tee shirt, he's culpable too? He should be stood down from the RWC perhaps?
Seeing that the "optics" are so compelling, what if I photoshop Keiran Read next to such a shirt?
I mean, surely the naivety argument holds true universally?
Why should he be stood down? I've never said, nor implied that.
We all know how it would end. IT would go viral, NZRFU would release an over the top statment about AB values and this doesn't represent them, Read would issue an apology talking about he didn't mean it etc etc. For many, Read would permanently be viewed as a whateverthewokecallthis-ist and so on. There would probably be a thread on this forum similar to the above.
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
Bloody sad day when guilt by association has become acceptable to many.
I dont think some people give any thought to where this sort of thing leads. It is like history teaches nothing.Agree entirely. Not actually sure why anybody would think I didn't.
-
A child guilty of possessing a video before possessing that video was a crime. Already has served 2 months in custody.
Hope we're all feeling safer.
-
@Rembrandt said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
A child guilty of possessing a video before possessing that video was a crime. Already has served 2 months in custody.
Hope we're all feeling safer.
There's quite a lot more to this story than the media are allowed to report.
From what I've heard from a few lawyers I know around town, the conviction is more than justified.
I think you still have a point, but perhaps that extends to the restrictions on the media reporting rather than the actual conviction.
-
@SammyC said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
@Rembrandt said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
A child guilty of possessing a video before possessing that video was a crime. Already has served 2 months in custody.
Hope we're all feeling safer.
There's quite a lot more to this story than the media are allowed to report.
From what I've heard from a few lawyers I know around town, the conviction is more than justified.
I think you still have a point, but perhaps that extends to the restrictions on the media reporting rather than the actual conviction.
How progressive of NZ to charge and criminalise teenagers for a video
Even more progressive to remand a teenager in prison for 2 months for a fecking video
He'll be a perfectly happy & well adjusted teenager as a result of his wonderful experience in the Criminal Justice System
A 1st world nation having a "Chief Censor" is an abomination in a 21st century democracy
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Jaguares4real said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
@SammyC said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
@Rembrandt said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
A child guilty of possessing a video before possessing that video was a crime. Already has served 2 months in custody.
Hope we're all feeling safer.
There's quite a lot more to this story than the media are allowed to report.
From what I've heard from a few lawyers I know around town, the conviction is more than justified.
I think you still have a point, but perhaps that extends to the restrictions on the media reporting rather than the actual conviction.
How progressive of NZ to charge and criminalise teenagers for a video
Even more progressive to remand a teenager in prison for 2 months for a fecking video
He'll be a perfectly happy & well adjusted teenager as a result of his wonderful experience in the Criminal Justice System
A 1st world nation having a "Chief Censor" is an abomination in a 21st century democracy
Funny how you quote something without reading it.
The bit you quoted clearly states that there is more to this than reported.
Before you deride the whole decision perhaps take into account that you probably don't know all the facts or context?As for no censorship at all? Nah, don't think so. Some laws are in place for a reason.
Argue the degree of censorship by all means, but do so with the facts in front of you when using an example. -
@Crucial said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
@Jaguares4real said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
@SammyC said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
@Rembrandt said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
A child guilty of possessing a video before possessing that video was a crime. Already has served 2 months in custody.
Hope we're all feeling safer.
There's quite a lot more to this story than the media are allowed to report.
From what I've heard from a few lawyers I know around town, the conviction is more than justified.
I think you still have a point, but perhaps that extends to the restrictions on the media reporting rather than the actual conviction.
How progressive of NZ to charge and criminalise teenagers for a video
Even more progressive to remand a teenager in prison for 2 months for a fecking video
He'll be a perfectly happy & well adjusted teenager as a result of his wonderful experience in the Criminal Justice System
A 1st world nation having a "Chief Censor" is an abomination in a 21st century democracy
Funny how you quote something without reading it.
The bit you quoted clearly states that there is more to this than reported.
Before you deride the whole decision perhaps take into account that you probably don't know all the facts or context?As for no censorship at all? Nah, don't think so. Some laws are in place for a reason.
Argue the degree of censorship by all means, but do so with the facts in front of you when using an example.I read the article in its entirety
Please inform this non Kiwi of the need for a "Chief Censor" in a 21st Century democracy?
What facts am I missing?
A 16 year kid was arrested, charged & remanded in prsion for 2 months for possessing a video He's not a murderer rapist paedophile...
What else can he do with a video? Share it amongst his peers, put it on social media
Heaven forbid there're no other website/forums that already have the video Oh shit there is Reddit 4Chan 8Chan etc
All I have so far is a 2nd hand account from a bunch of lawyers who can't say much You don't need Censorship when you self censor yourself
This nonsense would not be tolerated in UK USA and most of Europe
I guess NZ is a bit behind the times Small Island mentality...... -
@Jaguares4real are you advocating for no censorship at all?
Those countries that you hold up as good examples are oft held up as having over reaching censorship.
Do your comments apply to say, child pornography? I mean if someone 'only had a video'. They didn't commit the crime.
-
@Crucial said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
@Jaguares4real are you advocating for no censorship at all?
Those countries that you hold up as good examples are oft held up as having over reaching censorship.
Do your comments apply to say, child pornography? I mean if someone 'only had a video'. They didn't commit the crime.
USA has the 1st Amendment not a bad starting
UK is alright Folks are starting to wake up to PC Identity Politics
No likes to to be told what to think and how to thinkMoreover there is no such thing as "child porn" It's called Indecent images of Children
Porn indicates some form of consent & legality to the material produced
Furthermore it's illegal to posses and distribute Indecent Images of Children so your analogy is null and void
NZ as far as I can tell has no tradition of Free Speech innovation & has the disgraceful office of "Chief Censor" so NZ can't be taken seriously in these matters
-
@Jaguares4real said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
@Crucial said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
@Jaguares4real are you advocating for no censorship at all?
Those countries that you hold up as good examples are oft held up as having over reaching censorship.
Do your comments apply to say, child pornography? I mean if someone 'only had a video'. They didn't commit the crime.
USA has the 1st Amendment not a bad starting
UK is alright Folks are starting to wake up to PC Identity Politics
No likes to to be told what to think and how to thinkMoreover there is no such thing as "child porn" It's called Indecent images of Children
Porn indicates some form of consent & legality to the material produced
Furthermore it's illegal to posses and distribute Indecent Images of Children so your analogy is null and void
NZ as far as I can tell has no tradition of Free Speech innovation & has the disgraceful office of "Chief Censor" so NZ can't be taken seriously in these matters
The analogy isn't null and void at all.
The Chief Censor in NZ is an 'arms length' body that classifies things through interpretation of the Classification ActHere is a description of how the Classification Act works
*The Act's classification criteria describe what can be restricted or banned.
The Classification Office evaluates publications using the criteria in sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Classification Act.
Under section 3, a publication may be restricted or banned if it 'describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with' matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence. If a publication is restricted or banned, this means that it is likely to be harmful to society if made freely available. Publications which promote or support, or tend to promote or support certain activities, such as the sexual exploitation of children, must be banned.
Under sections 3A and 3B, the Classification Office can also impose an age restriction on a publication containing highly offensive language, self-harm, degrading or demeaning conduct, or conduct that would be dangerous if imitated.
The Act does not regulate political speech, the expression of opinions, or 'hate speech'.The video we are discussing comes under Section 3 in exactly the same way as possessing other objectionable material (eg indecent images of children).
You are being deliberately ignorant of the mechanism of a censors office in NZ either to promote your political views or simply to troll (I say this given your pattern of posting).
By all means debate rationally the merit of classifying this video as 'harmful to society if made freely available' (as others in the thread already have.
Describing the way NZ has set up an independent body to classify material as a 'disgraceful office' just highlights your ignorance.
-
@Siam said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
Chief Censor David Shanks:
"If you have a copy of this publication, delete or destroy it. If you see it, report it. Do not support the murderous objectives of its author by republishing or distributing it."However, Shanks said the office appreciated there would be a range of people who would be in possession of the document for "legitimate" purposes, including education, analysis and in-depth reporting.
"Those individuals can apply for exemptions, so they can legitimately access and hold a copy."
Shanks said anyone who sees the document online should report it immediately.
I want to read it to better understand this psychopath. I watched the video to see what an incident like this looks like so that I'm not "deer in the headlights" like some were. I noted what gunfire sounds like, the need to never, never be stationary in such a circumstance, the split second cognisance required when you see a guy in army fancy dress on a given afternoon.
I get that some don't want see it, or the manifesto cool, ok. But banning it suggests you think I'm going to read it and be compelled to copy, how dare you associate that with the NZ populace. The arrogance that says, "you're not mature or intelligent enough to learn from this, according to me".
For the first time in my 50 years, I'm ashamed of my country. It's not a nice feeling.
Well said
This is Orwellian
I'd expect this kind of crap from the Ministry of "Information" in a banana republic or dictatorship
-
You're doing a good job of being the Chief Censor's spokesman
The role is unnecessary Please explain it purpose and why there aren't similar bodies in democracies?
It's not needed & is arguably a big brother lite authority to "protect" us from bad things
-
@Jaguares4real said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:
You're doing a good job of being the Chief Censor's spokesman
The role is unnecessary Please explain it purpose and why there aren't similar bodies in democracies?
It's not needed & is arguably a big brother lite authority to "protect" us from bad things
I have tried to assist your understanding but you appear to be unreceptive to thinking outside of your sphere.
I’ll try one more simple explanation and hopefully you can educate yourself further.
Yes, other countries take a different approach because they prescribe classification of materials directly through laws that have to be argued and interpreted through courts.
I like the concept that we have a non political body that takes a framework of law and classifies as it deems appropriate. The classifications can be challenged (and often are)
It is just a different system to those you compare against but serve pretty much the same purpose of keeping objectionable material out of circulation.
As I keep saying, argue out the ‘objectionable-ness’ of the video but trying to paint the mechanism as the problem is only showing a lack of understanding.
You continually argue that there should be no censorship then change angle when confronted with good reasons why it exists. -
First they came for Philip Arps and I said nothing because he seemed like he was a nasty prick who belonged in jail
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12262414