Determination to keep the Christchurch attack video off the Internet,
and block the attackers manifesto have continued to expand in New
Zealand. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has now promised to not even say the attacker’s name publicly.
Ardern suggested that the attacker carried out the strike in an attempt
to gain notoriety, and is urging New Zealanders to deny him that by not
even speaking his name in the future.
New Zealand’s campaign against the video of the attack has included the
police threatening to imprison people for 10 years if they are in
possession of, or share the video. New Zealand ISPs have been pressed to
block foreign websites that have the video or the manifesto.
The international investigation into the matter
is still trying to build an accurate picture of the attacker and his
motives. Though New Zealand is clearly playing a role in this, it seems
the New Zealand government would just as soon scrub all record of the
attack having ever happened.
I think she’s right. I am a firm supporter of free speech, but, remember that while you have the right to free speech it doesn’t mean you can yell “Fire” in a crowded movie house.
This is similar. The “Fire” in this case is inspiring others to propagate violence towards others. And THAT is not protected by the 2nd amendment.
I only wish that this could be applied to the mass shootings in the US which are now outpacing serial killers.
BS. You are an enemy of free speech, not a “firm supporter”. This isn’t a theatre, and the theatre simile doesn’t materially apply. “Inspiring” is not a valid concept: freedom of speech is based on individual responsibility. Speech aimed at convincing you to do something does not cancel your free will and you are the only responsible party if you follow it.
Violence cannot be “propagated” by speech only but only by physical action.
Yelling fire in a theater or showing child porn is illegal. Free speech stops at what is illegal. We did not shoot those 50 people, so we have a right to see the video showing that act, regardless of who filmed it–just as it could be shown to jurors and probably will be.
Actually, free speech cannot stop at ‘illegal’; who then decides? The anti-porn thing came in during the Bill Clinton era, and you seem to know the Clinton lore.
Internet crusaders had been winning that fight without government help. Now, its tricky for free agents to go after bad guys, and even victims are guilty of a severe crime just by retaining evidence of themselves being abused.
Illegal speech cannot facilitate government control and suppression of evidence.
I don’t agree with censoring the manifesto. One would imagine that it would have to be part of the investigation to find out the true motivations of the killer. Instead of coming out with pre-determined caricature explanations. I don’t imagine the manifesto in itself is going to inspire and propagate violence.
The video is a different matter. While it should be available to some who want to satisfy whatever morbid curiosity they have, the NZ government is under no obligation to make it easily accessible to everyone, such as children and teens. The video is more dangerous in terms of inciting violence aside from being “offensive” in many other ways, plus one would have to consider what the victim’s families have to say about the matter.
You are a limp supporter of free speech.
We can lawyer this issue to death, but either there is unabridged free speech or their isn’t.
And the answer is, from what I understand, that there isn’t unabridged free speech anywhere in the world.
Right! Different societies have different notions of what can and cannot be said. In America, if I called you a mofo, that would not give you the right to punch me in the face. In other countries it would be considered something that you had coming. We used to be like that too sometime back…
Obviously this man delights in the publicity and if he were to be hanged in the public square it would be his crowning glory. Letting him rot in prison after (I assume) a fair trial would be wiser, as we can hardly pretend we will learn much from more investigation of his life.
Hmmm? Most radicals understand the government is not an enemy to be violently provoked as that only becomes an excuse for more statism.
Brenton Tarrant doesn’t even sound like a real name but an Anglo caricature out of a B-movie. So what’s his deal? He’s essentially sabotaged the NZ anti-migrant movement.
So, let me get this straight. The attacker is being held incognito, the PM won’t mention his name, and we can’t even see a picture of his face. We know absolutely nothing about his job as a “physical trainer”, who his co-workers were, or who his neighbors in Australia are. Will there be a secret trial, too, with all the jurors blindfolded? Or, maybe just a summary execution? This goes way beyond censorship and into the realm of the Kafkaesque.
The initial justification for the invasion of Afghanistan was largely because of the public outrage caused by pictures of Osama bin Laden and the 19 so-called hijackers splashed all over the MSM within hours of the event. Did we worry even one iota about denying those attackers notoriety? Can anyone tell me how this horrible crime is any different?
There isn’t much difference, which is probably the problem.
Supposedly the ‘Five Eyes’ is just now making an effort to put together a ‘global profile’ of the shooter… but they possibly already had one.
https://www. reuters. com/article/us-newzealand-shootout-idUSKCN1R02UX
‘Brenton Tarrant’ has a very thin bio that still reads ‘perfect excuse’ for governments to undermine civil rights.
https://www. usatoday. com/story/news/nation/2019/03/15/new-zealand-christchurch-mosque-shootings-who-brenton-tarrant/3172550002/
The NZ PM seems trying to make political hay and cover-ass all at once.
Why is it every time security services fail, they get more power as a reward?
An objective depiction of events does not inherently inspire anyone to commit violence. It is protected by the 1st amendment (not the 2nd). The manifesto also is entitled to 1st amendment protection. The Unabomber’s manifesto was widely published, it did not cause any copycat bombings. (And while I didn’t refer to him by name, people know who he is. I avoided the name mainly because it’s hard to spell.) Suppressing the written expression of someone’s ideas is never justified; such expression is nothing like yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
One group which has the video is claiming there are visual anomalies in it that suggest it was somehow faked, namely that shell casings seem to disappear when they hit the wall. I strongly doubt that, but would like to be able to see for myself, and to let independent experts examine it and give their opinions on any alleged anomalies. I expect the casings simply bounce off the wall and move out of the frame. They would not just fall to the floor below where they strike the wall. But again, I’d like the chance to see for myself if I so choose.