New Zealand Man Gets 21 Months In Prison For Sharing Footage Of The Christchurch Shooting
from the criminalizing-being-a-jerk dept
Shortly after the Christchurch mosque shooting, the New Zealand government's censorship board decided to categorize almost everything related to the shooting (the shooter's manifesto, his livestream of the shooting, his social media posts) as "objectionable." This wasn't a case of reaching an obvious conclusion. Officially terming it "objectionable" made it a criminal act to distribute any of this content via social media or other services.
Having done that, the government wasted no time bringing criminal charges against violators. The first arrest happened only two days after the shooting, netting the government an 18-year-old defendant. The more interesting arrest was the second one, which landed Phillip Arps, a local businessman with some not-so-latent white nationalist leanings.
Arps spent the hours after the shooting refusing to condemn the violent act and -- the event triggering the criminal charges -- passing around footage of the shooting. Not all that surprising for a man whose company is named after a German prison camp and who charges $14.88 a foot for insulation installation.
Since each count against Arps could have netted him a max 14 years in prison, the final sentence seems comparatively light.
A businessman in New Zealand has been sentenced to nearly two years in prison for sharing footage of the Christchurch mosque attacks, which saw a lone gunman livestream the massacre of 51 Muslims during Friday prayers on March 15.
Philip Arps, 44, was sentenced during a court hearing in Christchurch on Tuesday after having earlier pleaded guilty to two charges of distributing objectionable material.
Arps will spend 21 months in prison for sharing footage of the shooting with 30 people. This sentence only seems reasonable in comparison to the 28 years he could have been hit with. What's not reasonable is putting someone in prison for sharing footage of a crime committed by someone else, no matter how objectionable their personal beliefs are.
The government's immediate reaction to this tragedy has been emotionally-charged. This may make for speedy legislating, but first reactions are rarely the most thoughtful reactions. The government has criminalized the sharing of content the general public is going to naturally find interesting. They will seek it out and share it -- some out of curiosity and some to continue spreading their hate as thinly as possible.
This behavior shouldn't be encouraged but it also shouldn't be criminalized. But legislators and the state censorship board saw an opportunity to make a statement -- one that came with prison sentences attached -- few in the nation would openly object to. This opportunism is going to result in some sketchy prosecutions in the future -- one far less clear-cut than the punishment of a New Zealand citizen for being an asshole.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: christchurch shooting, free speech, new zealand, objectionable material, philip arps, sharing, video
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Censorship test. Getting ready to post elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This site has been "moderating" me on and off lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Strange, it hasn't been doing that to anybody else. Have you tried NOT spamming the site with bullshit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Strange, it hasn't been doing that to anybody else. Have you tried NOT spamming the site with bullshit?
"Bullshit" defined as that with which you disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go be impotent somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that which is demonstrably untrue. Which is why you keep getting reported after you repost crap that's been debunked hundreds of times already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that which is demonstrably untrue. Which is why you keep getting reported after you repost crap that's been debunked hundreds of times already.
In other words, stuff you and/or a few others disagree with.
Didn't know you were the arbiter of truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No facts, which are backed by evidence. Something you rarely include in your spamming here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"debunked" means that the statements have been proven to contain false logic, not that they make someone feel upset.
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, it's about falsifying the statements.
There are statements like "there is no God" which cannot be falsified -- therefore, in this case it cannot be debunked and comes down to opinion.
There are other statements like "The owners of this site are actively blocking my posts because they disagree with my opinions" that can be easily falsified by the owners of this site showing that they aren't, in fact, actively blocking your posts, but that a totally neutral community system hides posts that get excessively reported.
It's the second type of statement that is causing you to get flagged here. It's factually and provably untrue, but repeated anyway. Stick to the first type, and you'll be fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to defend the waste of space but I do believe certain IP ranges can trigger a moderation hold at times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. In which case, you patiently wait for your comment to be reviewed and approved. You don't give the spam filter more reason to expect suspicious activity from those IP ranges by barraging the site with attempts to get your message through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They can. As a result of certain people getting reported for spamming so much that the system considers them high risk. Just like any spam filter would do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Bullshit" defined as that with which you disagree.
Endless spam test posts are bullshit, so yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Get off dial-up and find a 21st century ISP.
AOL isn't a thing anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I no longer agree with you on this
I used to think that your position on this issue was the correct one. But as a New Zealander I have a different perspective on this now. I don't mean "This one is special, so free speech just doesn't apply here," I mean that this is on the other side of the line.
First, NZ doesn't have the free speech absolutism of the US. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are definitely times where we go too far the other way, but for comparison, leaked US State department memos complained that we had too much respect for free speech, so we aren't that bad.
If the footage were security camera footage, or shot by observers, then I'd have more sympathy for your position. But this footage is itself part of an act of terrorism. That is different from e.g. the footage of the twin towers, which was shot by observers. This is footage shot by the terrorist. Spreading this video is his goal. He's just plead not guilty so that he has the chance to draw even more attention to his acts. Every time the video is shared, his act of terrorism increases in size. The primary goal of sharing it is to recruit others to his cause and inflict more damage on his victims; even those who themselves share it without this goal are furthering his.
Emotionally, I would like to silence him completely. Try him in a secret court and release none of his testimony. Gag him completely. Deny him visitors. Hold him in solitary for the rest of his miserable life. But that isn't how justice or our country should work, and I hope he can be prevented from preaching and hurting the victims families further without compromising the things that make our justice system work.
So you're free to disagree. I understand your position on free speech and I respect it. But I hope that the points above make at least some sense to you. And if they don't, well it's our country and we'll run it our way. You're free to disagree and say what you want. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I no longer agree with you on this
If I said I found your opinion objectionable, and morally reprehensible, would you be ok with serving jail time for deciding to share it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps you should fuck off then
Are you a NZ law enforcement official?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
I find that slippery slope arguments tend towards the bullshit.
My comments can't be construed as actively harming anyone. You could make the argument that a preponderance of people arguing my side could go too far, but that requires a logical leap.
I'm not promoting terrorism. There's a world of difference. The slope isn't that slippery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Ah, it's fortunate that we're dealing with such a clearly-defined, black-and-white accusation like "promoting terrorism". It's incredibly unlikely that a charge like that would ever be excessively extended or used against politically-unpopular people. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
(taken from dictionary.com)
It does not look, to me, like other people where suggesting you were promoting terrorism, but
Maybe you, yourself were?
That looks suspiciouly like promoting threats (and maybe some violence) to intemidate. Which sounds kinda like a definition of terrorism.
I'd find it kinda terrifying to live in a state where people can be secretly taken away simply because the communicated something (From the article, the only thing he did was communicate... sharing a video is a form of communication). Further more being deprived of due process sounds like a facit of an oppresive regime (which I think would be a terrifying place to live in).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
While Steve G confessed to wanting to silence the man, AC, he did turn around and say "But that isn't how justice or our country should work..."
Here's the question: how does society benefit from letting people run around spreading hate? Is there any benefit at all?
The "Use counter-speech" brigade haven't got a solution to a one-sided situation where the hate speech spreader is not getting hammered for being a jerk. They only ever use those cases where the jerk got put in his place as examples.
This is why I always say: any philosophy predicated on a best case scenario is ultimately doomed to failure.
You're not ready to hope for the best till you're prepared for the worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
This is not ‘the question’. It is a deliberately one-sided rhetorical framing of the issue of censorship, and your comment amounts to a content-free endorsement of broad censorship.
In this case, the person being censored is repellent and was sharing this material for repellent reasons, so it's easy to think there is no downside to punishing him. But how does this affect people who post “terrorist material” for the historical record? And does it create an abusable precedent for persecuting anyone who posts “offensive” content? Pretending that the answer is “obviously not” is extremely myopic--consider China’s treatment of any material related to the Tiananmen Square massacre.
You bluster and frame the issue in black-and-white: It's about stopping people from “spreading hate” (Popehat's Trope One). You ignore the difficult-in-general questions of defining “hateful” content, evaluating the speaker's reasons for posting the content, etc., and deceptively pretend these problems don't exist.
People who have no interest in “spreading hate” have suffered and continue at this moment to suffer under laws purporting to protect people from “dangerous” content. You ignore this--which is abhorrent--and have the gall to ask “why shouldn't we censor?”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
People who have no interest in “spreading hate” have suffered and continue at this moment to suffer under laws purporting to protect people from “dangerous” content. You ignore this--which is abhorrent--and have the gall to ask “why shouldn't we censor?”
@takitus, no, mate. I have taken context into consideration.
I know about Poland censoring material alleging collaboration with the Nazis during the Second World War on grounds of butthurt, or something. I'm not happy about people being sent to jail for off-colour comments.
What you're not seeing is how the proliferation of hate material for the purpose of spreading hate, not to report atrocities, has a chilling effect on individuals and groups; it is, in effect, a form of censorship because it makes them afraid to speak out. Try being in a target group some time, it's an education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Soooo... mean looks should be crimalized as well? That's also a form of "censorship" (and probably hate too)? And I'm sure an inumerable number of people have shut up in fear from a mean look someone gave them.
Every what I've seen people here frame the argument, it still boilds down to "did an action legal for some people" while "holding a bad belief/saying something unpalatable".
If it actually makes sense to start crimalizing social interaction/communication, then we can just give up on a sane society (which is the hell scape I keep seening being painted here).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on th
How do you feel about the ruling in Virginia v. Black, where SCOTUS decided that the act of burning a cross, by itself, is considered protected speech, but the act of burning a cross with the intent to intimidate is not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you o
Skimmed over the article so not sure I got all the facts right. But it seems rather strongly at odds with the first amendment. I wont say that SCOTUS always come to remotely sane conclusions.
I mean if clan members aren't allowed to publicly burn crosses (assuming they have any fire/burn permits needs, and other safety concerns are correctly addressed), that's one less easy way to identiy the human shapped trash.
And to be honest, I'm rather unfond of the other ways the clan has of informing us of their dispostions.
If we intemidate them from publically sharing their possitions, that both chills their speech, and makes it so that we have less visiblity into their existance.
And it also sends the message to other minority groups (who might be much less inclined to act violently) that if we are offended by their beliefs, they may be oppresssed.
BTW: I think chocolate covered ants are a disgusting thing. Maybe we should jail anyone who post a YouTube video of eating them and enjoying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with y
I don't get the argument. Klansmen tend to wear hooded white robes. On the one hand, that makes "identifying" the people burning crosses without removing the robe problematic. On the other, if you remove a hooded white KKK robe from someone so that you can identify them, it's pretty clear that the person you've identified is human-shaped trash, regardless of whether they have recently burned crosses or not.
Alternate take: It both protects the people they would otherwise target and makes it more difficult for them to spread their bigotry.
Not if we make it clear that it's the violence (and the threat of such) that offends us. It's hard to see how a minority group would see us take action against oppression, and conclude it's likely that they will end up being oppressed as a result.
Also, "other" minority groups? What do you mean? What minority group were you previously discussing?
...And there you go, losing the plot again. We're talking about violent extremists posting threatening content with the intent to intimidate. How the Hell is "chocolate covered ants" relevant to any part of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree wi
Ah! I think I found the problem.
We are not talking about violent extreamists posting videos (at least from what the article says). We are talk about extreamist who verbally convey disgusting things while posting videos of violence.
If the person in question was a violent extreamist, he would have been jailed for the violence. Instead he was jailed (according to the article) for communicating ideas certain other people found offensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agre
From the linked article:
...That doesn't sound like an individual prone to violence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer
oh you're still talking about the SCOTUS case.
regarding ants: if people vote it as funny, then I guess at least some people got it (alternately: my jokes may suck too badly)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no lon
I'm taking about the New Zealand case. Which is why the name in that quote I quoted is the same as the name in the OP, and not "Black," as in Virginia v. Black.
The dearth of basic reading comprehension I have to deal with here, I swear. It's like trying to argue with a bunch of ELIZA clones loaded with a list of keyword-triggered free speech talking points, except that ELIZA is able to spell words correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
I'm sorry to hear that you hold such an abhorrent belief. However my own belief is that you are free to express that belief, and to tell others about it, regardless of the damange it may or may not cause society.
Incidentally most people I've met, when faced when someone speaking of a distasteful belief, wont just abandon their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
What part of Wendy's comment, specifically, do you find "abhorrent?"
I'm running up and down, back and forth, through the comment you replied to, and I can't find anything that deserves such a label, even if the reader is the fiercest defender of free speech.
Please, quote the belief expressed therein which you find so contemptible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Dear Uninformed
You have a good nature but naive understanding. The law we are talking about is about criminalizing completly legal behaviour so ramping up laws the government can use to put people in jail that they dont like. If you dont believe that this is what it is all about look at the references in the press. The government always uses these sorts of events to push harder to create more surveilance and punishing laws so they have ample leeway to prosecute those they are trying to silence. Its true, thats why you should listen to masnik and his crew, they are showing you the way. Going the way your government is going will in the future make even you a criminal that could be locked up. Think hard about this. Very hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I no longer agree with you on this
I see you are agreeing with your censorious government. Very smart of you. You'll be safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
It's funny: the word censorious is one I rarely see, except among a dozen or so free-speech advocates, mostly lawyers, who all know each other and parrot each other's beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Impotent is a funny word too.
It’s funny the only person I see here threatening other people is you bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Yeah, this must be an American thing. A white nationalist, speading videos of another white nationalist massacring innocent people, for the purpose of glorifying that slaughter and inspiring more of the same... Someone's going to have to explain to me why that shouldn't be criminalized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Well because some of us believe that holding a belief (and sharing that belief) shouldn't be crimalized (regardless of how diplorable we find that belief).
Of course acting on it (in this case murdering people) can (and in this case should) be a crime.
Since I think that the idea itself of crimalizing the expression of ones beliefs is deplorable and objectionable, does that mean that If I were in a poistion of power I should jail those who express such beliefs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
You can have your beliefs, I really do not care, however - when you start shoving your beliefs into other's faces you might begin to get some feedback - no?
It is not illegal to have a belief, but it is illegal to murder people. Not sure why this is so hard to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
So freedom of speech is equal to murder? Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Don't know from where you obtained that one. Perhaps you could explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
See, that's part of what I don't get. I can't see how "spreading the video of a massacre perpetrated by someone who has the same beliefs as you" gets reduced all the way down to "holding a belief," "sharing a belief," and "expressing a belief."
This guy isn't being imprisoned for saying hateful, racist, violent things about Muslims; he's being imprisoned for gleefully disseminating a video of a white nationalist murdering Muslims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
So are you saying at least one of:
1) disseminating videos of an attroicity is/should be a crimal offense.
2) enjoying something other people find distastefull/offensive is/should a criminal offense
?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
I am saying that if someone creates and shares video of an atrocity with the goal of it encouraging further acts of terrorism, then disseminating it with the same goal should be a criminal offense.
I think that when ISIS posts the video of someone being beheaded, with the intent of it being propaganda against the West, it should be treated exactly the same way.
Clear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Trying to find the pattern in your logic. If I understand correctly then anything involving murder, even video coverage of the event but only if the video was shot by the perpetrator, should be illegal including anyone not involved in the murder sharing that perpetrator's video, including news sites.
Do I have that about right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
To quote myself:
So: no, you're not understanding correctly, and no, you don't have that about right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on th
"I am saying that if someone creates and shares video of an atrocity with the goal of it encouraging further acts of terrorism, then disseminating it with the same goal should be a criminal offense."
"If I understand correctly then anything involving murder, even video coverage of the event but only if the video was shot by the perpetrator, should be illegal including anyone not involved in the murder sharing that perpetrator's video, including news sites.
Do I have that about right?"
Sounds like he got it right to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you o
The preceding comment (mine) requires a motivation by both the person who created the video of the attack, and the person sharing it, to spread a violent ideology.
Is there anything, anything at all, about motivation, on the part of either the person filming or the person sharing, in the reply below?
No, no there isn't.
I shudder at the lack of basic reading comprehension being displayed here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
What, ultimately, is the difference? Would it still be "objectionable" to merely assault muslims? To kill simulated muslims? The devil is absolutely in the details. There's no good way to define this other than "thing person in power doesn't like". Perhaps that's acceptable to you but there is definitely a cultural strain in America that recoils in horror at the idea that a diktat can decide what what ideas you are even allowed to express. There is an immediate fear that such powers can and will be used for great evil.
The fact of the matter is that NZ has put a man in a cage for almost two years (down from almost three decades!) despite the fact that, while he may be a jerk, he hasn't actually hurt anyone. He might be "gleefully" sharing hideous and disgusting things with his friends but why does that matter to you? He isn't hurting anyone. Were the shoe on the other foot and the rulers decided that perhaps your political ideas (or your sex life) were too "objectionable" would you be comfortable going to jail for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
If my political beliefs or sex life involved the massacre of innocent people, absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Ah, but that's the thing. You don't get to decide where the censorship train stops. And who'sto say you don't. They send you to jail, say you were posting terrorism. Who's to say otherwise when all the evidence itself is illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
You speak as if there isn't already a censorship train. It stops in different places in the US than it does in other countries, but it does make stops there (see my previous post. And, even in the US, I don't get to decide where it stops (and, specifically, what "obscenity" is). Why should I be any more worried than Americans are?
To bring it back to NZ, this law has, once again, been on the books for 25 years, and this is, to my knowledge, the first time people have been arrested for criminal sharing of an objectionable video. Why should I believe your fearmongering about this "censorship train," rather than the abundant evidence of this law not being abused to jail political opponents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
while he may be a jerk, he hasn't actually hurt anyone
From Steve G's post:
But this footage is itself part of an act of terrorism. That is different from e.g. the footage of the twin towers, which was shot by observers. This is footage shot by the terrorist. Spreading this video is his goal. He's just plead not guilty so that he has the chance to draw even more attention to his acts. Every time the video is shared, his act of terrorism increases in size. The primary goal of sharing it is to recruit others to his cause and inflict more damage on his victims; even those who themselves share it without this goal are furthering his.
The purpose of terrorism isn't to kill people, otherwise it'd just be murder, plain and simple. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorise, i.e make people feel fearful.
Terrorism, i.e. inspiring fear in people, is in itself a harm. It chills speech and expression in the exact same way as censorship does because it is the ultimate act of censorship. Imagine being a Muslim in Christchurch knowing that your neighbours were gleefully sharing that video around saying that the killer had the right idea. Who would issue the counter-speech? You'd keep quiet, keep your head down and dress in Western clothes to minimise the risk of abuse by your neighbours since expressing your faith would put you at risk.
Now do you understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
The footage was the terrorism as the idea was to terrify Muslims. How comfortable would you be living next door to this jerk and the people he gleefully shared the video with?
As I said, terrorism is the ultimate censorship. That's what it's for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
"How comfortable would you be living next door to this jerk and the people he gleefully shared the video with?"
You are confusing me. Did he show it to muslims to scare them as he is their neighbor, or did he share it with friends, whom very few would have knowledge of that and therefore not scaring anyone you say it was intended to scare?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Ask and ye shall receive.
Very well. What would be the practical and legal difference between sharing the footage of the Christchurch shooting and any of the following?:
You might contest that some of these are newsworthy, fictional, or just happened to people thay aren't in NZ and nobody really liked anyway but they all boil down to the same thing: realistic depictions of humans dying. If the Christchurch massacre is "objectionable" in the legal sense what is to stop the authorities from determining any of the others are too? China determined that the Tiannanmen square massacre was objectionable too. Is that really the model of censorship you want to mimic? The answer to bad speech is more speech. "You can't say that" doesn't work. People just keep saying it but they do it in the dark where you can't see it. Free Speech with a limit isn't actually free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
There are tons of limits on free speech. The classic examples in American jurisprudence are:
There are a couple of others I think I'm missing, but the above are enough to serve the point. If you say that "free speech with a limit isn't actually free"... are you actually arguing that all of the above should be legal?
...And that's a bad thing? It's got to put a damper on their ability to recruit if they can't say such things openly.
...The same thing that's stopped them from doing so up until this point, since the bill allowing speech to be deemed "objectionable" came into effect in 1993?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
"fictional"
You don't think there's a difference between a massacre of innocent people, the legally ordered sentence for a war criminal and a fictional story?
"Free Speech with a limit isn't actually free."
Nor is it when you are forced to host speech on your property against your will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Nor is it when you are forced to host speech on your property against your will.
If your property is billed as a platform, then you shouldn't be regulating who uses it, or it's just a soapbox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Why should the law guarantee someone the use of somebody else's platform?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Dammit Paul, did you deliberately do that to encourage the trolls from the MCAC v. Halleck post to come over here? Content moderation wasn't under discussion here until you brought it up; this post is entirely about state censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
A typical hollywood horror movie
We used to have the Hays commission under the belief that glorifying violence and showing how to commit crimes in film was a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks for playing though
Turns out they were wrong bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
"A white nationalist, speading videos of another white nationalist massacring innocent people, for the purpose of glorifying that slaughter and inspiring more of the same... Someone's going to have to explain to me why that shouldn't be criminalized."
Because purpose is irrelevant in this case as no actual direct harm can be done.
Assuming that people will be <I>inspired</I> to slaughter others assumes that people are mindless zombies that will simply do what they are told. Even if you assume that some people are mindless zombies then you are locking somebody up for a horrendous act what other people might do.
How is that justice? Stop people from sharing footage that might inspire other humans to cause serious harm.
Should we lock up everybody who shares a video of car crashes because it might inspire other zombies to intentionally crash their cars? What about videos of cars driving into pedestrians?
Or should we just lock up those that commit the actual harm, do the actual crime?
And I'm across the ditch. I ain't American. So it's not an "American" position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Terrorism is a form of censorship, i.e. it can and does terrify people into conformity. If censorship is harmful, terrorism is harmful in the same way that censorship is in addition to the damage done to people and property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
By that logic, hiring a hitman should be legal. After all, you're only locking the employer up for his speech, and for "a horrendous act what other people might do." The hitman's not a "mindless zombie who will simply do what he is told." So, should we lock up the person hiring the hitman? "Or should we just lock up those that commit the actual harm, do the actual crime?"
This argument, of course, is nonsense.
We are responsible for not just our actions, but for the foreseeable consequences of our actions. If you punch someone in the face, they land on the ground and have the wind knocked out of them, and the extent of the harm done is a black eye, you're guilty of assault and battery. If you throw exactly the same punch, but the person you have punched bangs their head against a barstool on the way down, cracks their skull open, and dies, you're guilty of manslaughter. Your actions haven't changed, but the consequences that resulted from them have.
If your name is Ayman al-Zawahiri, and you post a video online to your followers to kill Americans, and someone acts on that to bomb the Boston Marathon, I think you should be held responsible. If your name is Sarah Palin and you paint a bulls-eye on the face of a United States Senator and someone shoots that Senator, I think you should be held responsible.
The New Zealand government determined that this video was likely to cause more acts of extremist violence. Which, in my mind, seeing how people have reacted to the Oslo/Utøya attack, the Isla Vista killings, the Toronto van attack... that's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. So they had it declared "objectionable." This asshole tried to spread the "Muslims should die" ideology using that video anyway, so he got thrown in prison for it.
For the love of...
Mens rea. Mens fucking rea. The intent doesn't just matter; in the case of nearly all crimes, it is the difference between having committed a crime or not (statutory rape and killing an endangered species being the two exceptions that come to mind).
No, I'm not suggesting that people who post car crashes be locked up, or journalists reporting on terror incidents, etc.
I am suggesting that when a video is made with the express intent of spreading a violent ideology and getting people killed, and then someone shares the video with the express intent of spreading a violent ideology and getting people killed, then you should start treating it as a crime. I have been nothing less than crystal clear on that.
Fair enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Why should public policy depend on the goals of an asshole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
When the goal is to terrify your friends and neighbours by indicating that you're on board with such activities, it totally should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
How would it be better to scare people with a video of the shooting created for non-terrorist purposes, like a news report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
A news reporter doesn't say, "You're next, Muzzie boy!" or put dog poop through your letterbox or scrawl hateful messages on your house. They're also not known for spouting hateful rhetoric or showing support for it, as a general rule.
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
I missed that in the post. Was it in one of the links or is this stuff other people have done that you are attributing to this poor fellow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I no longer agree with you on this
I am going with hate propaganda as I saw no mention of this in linked article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I no longer agree with you on this
Just make murder illegal. Problem solved. No one else will want to continue the crusade
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prison sentence
I am fine with this. Its not difficult to not do what is banned under these laws. This is not dangerous at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got off lightly?
Well, then. How about sharing it with 300 people?
Yup, got off lightly, I'll only have to spend 210 months in jail, when it could have been 280 years. I'd have been a brain in a jar by the time they let me out, if I'd gotten the max!
How about putting it on YouTube and sharing it with 300 million people? That's lucky too! I coulda been in jail until the post-human singularity had passed! I.... Wait....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm does that mean that sharing video's of the attack on the US world trade center will net you jail time in New Zealand as well? Or is that only for attrocities commited on their soil? Or maybe it only applies when you can see the victims faces in the video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps if you read the article and understood the underlying argument it would help put your dumbshit post to rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I understand the argument. New Zealand jailed an asshole for sharing video of a terrorist attack. What is the difference between that video and a video of the 9/11 attacks? Why shouldn't someone go to jail for sharing either video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The purpose for which the video was created, and the purpose for which the video is being shared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't think that there are terrorist groups that share the 9/11 video for the purpose of glorifying terrorist acts?
Or are all 9/11 videos not shared for that purpose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You ignore half of my quote. Were those videos created for that purpose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you really thing that there wasn't anybody involved in 9/11 whose purpose was to record video of the attacks?
Terrorists love to video record their terrorist deeds to use as propaganda, so I can't imagine that there isn't a set of videos of the 9/11 attacks that were made for the sole purpose of glorifying their act and spreading their message of hate while trying to attract new people.
Whether we know it or not, I am guessing that not every video of the attacks are legitimate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could you prove it in court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could you prove it wasn't in a court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most countries have a presumption of innocence in their criminal justice system. The prosecution has to prove every necessary point of their case beyond a reasonable doubt; if they can't, the defendant is ruled not guilty.
So, if the standard for conviction is "shared, with the intent of promoting extremism, a video of a massacre which was itself created for the purposes of promoting extremism," the defense doesn't have to prove that the video wasn't created for that purpose; they just have to show that the prosecution hasn't sufficiently proven that it was created for that purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes AFTER that fact...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That doesn’t matter. Arguments can be made that both a 9/11 video and the video of the Christchurch massacre are both newsworthy and tools of terrorism simultaneously. If one is acceptable and the other is not, what is the difference?
And if the guy in this case hadn’t been an open White supremacist, how would you feel about his jail sentence? Because I believe his being brought to trial has a smidge more to do with his White supremacy than his sharing the Christchurch video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've already said, multiple times, that I think the reason the video was shared is crucial in determining whether the sharer should be charged criminally. What else do you want me to say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He was arguably an accessory during the commission of the crime, and that’s a crime no matter what drove you to support massacring people in real time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Arguments can be made that both a 9/11 video and the video of the Christchurch massacre are both newsworthy and tools of terrorism simultaneously. If one is acceptable and the other is not, what is the difference?"
Bullshit. This was a terrorist recruitment video made by a terrorist being distributed by a convicted terrorist. If you can't see the difference, you're a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if the guy in this case hadn’t been an open White supremacist, how would you feel about his jail sentence?
Outraged. Context is everything, Stephen.
Because I believe his being brought to trial has a smidge more to do with his White supremacy than his sharing the Christchurch video.
Because you're correct, it totally is about his white supremacy. That is the context in which it was shared. There's a world of difference between "I am Phillip Arps and I approve this message" and "This is what the evil murderer did, folks."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is a difference between sharing after the fact and during the massacre. The article is about during.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but even after the massacre if the context is, "We approve of this" rather than, "This is what the evil terrorist did" then I believe it's actionable because it's going to create a chilling effect on the target individual or group, i.e. 'tis a form of censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As you mention above, context is important. But, the fact that it's historical material after the fact changes things, as they can no longer be encouraging the killer to do what he's doing in the moment, even if they're trying to recruit new soldiers.
It's sick either way, but there's an argument to be had that if he didn't have an audience sharing the video and egging him on, the shooter could have stopped early, or chickened out entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As you mention above, context is important. But, the fact that it's historical material after the fact changes things, as they can no longer be encouraging the killer to do what he's doing in the moment, even if they're trying to recruit new soldiers.
Yeah, but they're encouraging others to do it by recruiting new soldiers.
It's sick either way, but there's an argument to be had that if he didn't have an audience sharing the video and egging him on, the shooter could have stopped early, or chickened out entirely.
True, but I'm also thinking of the audience. People ought to be appalled at this, not cheering it on or scaring their neighbours into thinking that they might be next -- at the hands of the people living nearby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yeah, but they're encouraging others to do it by recruiting new soldiers."
Perhaps, but then there's other factors that are in play. There's no justification for a live stream of a murder in progress other than what I've stated. However, when after the fact it can be used to recruit... well so can many other things. Footage of US soldiers in action can be used to recruit ISIS, Triumph Of The Will can be used to recruit new Nazis as was its original intention - but they also have other uses not related to recruitment.
"True, but I'm also thinking of the audience."
I'm thinking of the audience too. The intended audience for that live video was similarly-minded psychopaths who would egg on a mass murderer in the act. The audience for later viewings may be something different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
One is the document of an event that could be seen across the city with the naked eye and the filming could not encourage any further actions by the perpetrators. The other was an event that could only be seen by the people sharing it, and likely the audience encouraged further killing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What if the person who took the video of the 911 attacks was a radicalized muslim and believed that the attack was justified, then posted his video?
Your argument boils down to the intent of the poster and jailing him for that intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Most crimes do. It's called "mens rea." If I run over and kill a cyclist because I had a heart attack, that's not a crime. If I run over and kill a cyclist because I left my house today wanting to kill a cyclist, that's first-degree murder. And the are all different levels of crime between the two, mostly dependent on my intent when I ran the cyclist over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you have no choice but to track down and determine the intent of the poster of any video that depicts violence. And if any of those who intended to glorify the event can convince you that they were just an innocent bystander who happened to get the even on video then they go free.
Sounds like a pretty crappy system imo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
False. Haven't you ever heard of "prosecutorial discretion?"
You don't have to charge someone for every crime that is committed, especially if doing so would require too many resources.
But, if you intend to prosecute someone for sharing that video? Absolutely you would.
"Better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be unjustly imprisoned."
Or whatever that quote is.
So, yeah, sounds good to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jesus Christ how horrifying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is, indeed, an apt description of the current state of the American criminal justice system.
And I agree wholeheartedly with "Jesus Christ how horrifying," as it pertains to that system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not the American justice system at all. No, the American system is far worse in that it's all about successful prosecutions at any cost, innocence be damned.
But that does seem to accurately describe the NZ system. Vindictive thought police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't see the contradiction between the one and the other.
Really.
Surely, if that's the an accurate description, you can find more than just the example above to justify it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
“And then”
That’s the important part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful There, Sport
"This behavior shouldn't be encouraged but it also shouldn't be criminalized."
The Thought Police don't much like it when people publicly express disapproving thoughts about the Thought Police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole country, New Zealand, is nothing more than Harvard on steroids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That doesn't really work as an insult. Even if you took an agenda-ridden exaggeration of their problems at face value the other aspects are a good enough thing. It would be like calling someone a Richard Feyman style jerk. Even if he acted like a pick up artist and showed no concern for those he got into hot water by guessing combination locks and leaving them unlocked the "charismatic and ground breaking physicist" part dominates.
The reverse would be like trying to compliment by comparing them to Mengele - even though he was a famous doctor he was known for sadistic travesties performed in the name of "science" that were absolutely useless for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: about tree-fiddy
I’d bet more money than your trailer is worth, you’ve never left your own county much less country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slippery slope?
There's an easy test for that.
This law has been on the books in NZ for over a quarter-century at this point.
If the slope were as slippery as you claim, there should already be some sketchy prosecutions under this law.
I can't find any, which leads me to believe there aren't any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The worst part is there will now be tons of people who otherwise wouldn't want to seek out the videos who will look into it on the basis that if the government makes it illegal, there must be a damn good reason.
Hell, part of me wondered if they made it illegal because it showed wrongdoing on their part, or somehow exonerated the shooter. Since I'm not in New Zealand I found the footage and saw it, and was disgusted, but if I couldn't see it, that doubt would be percolating in the back of my mind.
If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide, as governments like to keep saying. It sure looks like they have something to hide, and the dumbest part of it is they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm.. new places NOT TO VISIT
So New Zeland is now little USA, with all the nationalism and none of the independence... what a wanna be little brother they are...
making up charges and raiding people because big brother says so... check (Megaupload)
making natural human curiosity and nature illegal... check
making me wonder who owns this country (is New Zeland a subsidiary of AT&T or Comcast?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmm.. new places NOT TO VISIT
Since you can’t spell the country’s name you’re probably not educated enough to visit so your threats are meaningless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmm.. new places NOT TO VISIT
They wouldn’t let you in anyways as you would fail their character test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which beliefs will the government find 'objectionable' next?
What will you find 'objectionable' enough to give up your rights voluntarily?
Attending any church? Sorry, all religions other than pastafarians are now considered 'objectionable' and any observation of any other religious ceremonies will be punishable by death.
Have political views? Sorry, all parties except for the 'party in power' are now considered objectionable and will be punishable by death?
Think allowing other so share files is okay? Forget what you learned in kindergarden, we will raid your house (based on foreign 'sayso'), take all your stuff, and hold you until you are extradited.
Think these things won't happen? Look back they already have at some point in history...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which beliefs will the government find 'objectionable' next?
In New Zealand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which beliefs will the government find 'objectionable' next?
Hyperbole is fun, but see a doctor if those seemed like realistic scenarios that would not get any opposition from people who oppose live-streamed murder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which beliefs will the government find 'objectionable' next?
Hopefully climate change denial. I want that banned, restricted, curbed and otherwise shutdown. I want the legislation to be broad and vague and the we just let the courts decide on the boundaries.
This way a cone of silence will drop and then after that our emissions should too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just for reference..
https://saioi.net/blog/translation-of-islamic-prayer-what-people-recite-salah-namaz/
How 1 of the prayers is said.
And its nothing really new, if you are a Devout Religious person. Evne christian..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just for reference..
What was your point? There's nothing in there any more objectionable than anything said in any Christian or Catholic prayer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just for reference..
I think that was the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
spy camera available in pakistan
https://www.wishhub.pk/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to create a spectrum login account?
Making a record on the Spectrum stage is very straightforward. Simply adhere to the record creation guidelines given beneath and you are good to go to go:
Go to Spectrum Email Login ( http://spectrumemail-login.com/ ) » from your internet browser.
Here, you will see the login window.
In the event that you as of now have a Spectrum account, at that point enter your login subtleties.
On the off chance that you are another client, select 'Make a Username'.
This will take you to the enrollment page.
Give the mentioned subtleties on the enlistment page.
In the wake of giving the vital subtleties, select the 'Web'.
Further, select the 'Make email address' alternative.
At that point, click 'Make Mailbox.
Pick your secret word and you are finished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]