141–150 of 184 posts
As a bit of an aside, has anyone noticed that 4chan is not using HTTPS lately? I assume it's due to the new ownership. Does anyone have more info?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech is about government interference, and the first 3 categories have unanimous agreement. It's the "hate speech" label that gets complicated based on who defines it. Many who claim things are hate speech today also use hate speech themselves (following your definition of suppression based on race) to shout down and ban others. It shows just how complex this situation is and why "hate speech" is precisely the…
> Free speech is about government interference No. The 1st amendment of the US constitution is about government interference - the idea of free speech is broader than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably everywhere necessary. The snuff video has been adjudged obscene, the way the NZ law works it was always obscene, the censor just confirms it. In practice if you access something like this and once you realise what you're seeing you stop watching then the government isn't going to come after you, but if you share it, keep a copy etc etc you have broken the law enough that you're likely in trouble. Because it'…
Don't be naive, it's not being blocked because it's "obscene" or "snuff". There are plenty of sites with _far_ worse than this video on them that aren't blocked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't be naive, it's not being blocked because it's "obscene" or "snuff". There are plenty of sites with _far_ worse than this video on them that aren't blocked.
No, that's exactly why it's being blocked, just because there's worse stuff out there doesn't suddenly make this evil stuff acceptable
You are using the same manipulative cherry-picked argument to justify censorship. Censorship is a weapon used by dictators, not free leaders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is _big_ news in the US, the place I feel confident claiming is the last bastion of free speech. (if there is such a thing) Viewing this as a NZ only issue is thinking small. There's discussions about free speech in the US and all over the world about this issue.
You said: > This is a great tool for stifling opposing politics of _any_ kind. And seems like the easiest way to start an oppressive tyranny than a method of stopping terrorist propaganda. You’re talking about a tool in New Zealand you clearly knew nothing about but presumed was some kind of censorship you’d find in a dictatorship. You’ve been corrected on that. Then your concern was far away authoritarian regimes. N…
Both NZ and the US and all other countries are becoming more oppressive every year. Censorship (the tool of tyranny and dictators) is constantly be pushed to "protect" someone.
If you think NZ won't change because of these events you are deceiving yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sorry that’s just naive and not at all borne out by history. When executions were a public spectacle (as in Tyburn) they were a huge party. People laughed and drank and cheered as people were hanged or drawn and quartered. I think you underestimate just how turned on a lot of people are by watching people suffer and die. We need to think very carefully before we empower people to engage in thst economy again.
I kind of addressed that in my second paragraph (which maybe I hadn't gotten in before delay ). I think we're already 80% down the slope of engaging in that economy. I agree with people's zeal w.r.t public executions, but isn't a key ingredient of the social validation is that it is a "justified" killing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's exactly why it's being blocked, just because there's worse stuff out there doesn't suddenly make this evil stuff acceptable
It's being blocked for political reasons. Just like when the US went to war against Iraq, one argument was "Saddam is a dictator that kills his own people". But there are worse dictators before and after Saddam. You are using the same manipulative cherry-picked argument to justify censorship. Censorship is a weapon used by dictators, not free leaders.
Censorship is part of our law, it's right and proper for the NZ censor to declare the snuff video as obscene, that's his job according to law. We're a democracy, if we decide we don't need a censor we'll legislate him away.
In the meantime I'm curious why you are so in favour of this video, are you a supporter of the terrorist and his goals?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does everyone really think that if a government bans 4chan, no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else because there's precedent now and nothing can be done? Is it really, though, or do people just like the strawman fallacy a bit too much?
>or do people just like the strawman fallacy a bit too much? Well, strawmen are often involved in the invocation of slippery slope arguments, so yes, probably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>or do people just like the strawman fallacy a bit too much? Well, strawmen are often involved in the invocation of slippery slope arguments, so yes, probably.
Whoosh. That post was about your strawman. As in the one that was quoted.
I didn't invoke any strawman. A slippery slope argument is, by definition, precisely as I described - that a particular degenerative state (be it social, or political) will inevitably be reached starting from some innocent and minor consequence, and that this trend cannot be reversed or corrected for.
You know, like falling down a slope that's slippery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Its such a slippery slope from censorship of bad websites to moving to censorship of good websites that the government does not like. Is it really, though, or do people just like the slippery slope fallacy a bit too much? Does everyone really think that if a government bans 4chan, no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else because there's precedent now and nothing can be done? That's not h…
The "it's a slippery slope fallacy to assume that censorship of bad things will lead to censoring good things" would be a more compelling argument if we didn't have thousands of years of human history proving that it happens again and again. "Oh - don't worry, this time in human history it won't be a slippery slope!" is not a very compelling argument when we have historical precedent of the opposite being true time a…
Do we? Because we appear to be in one of several threads about how the ease with which certain content spreads around the internet makes attempts at censorship futile, and I can legally buy a copy of Mein Kampf and the Turner Diaries and read the Unabomber's manifesto and all kinds of stuff generally agreed upon to be "bad things," and I don't see the vast amount of "good things" being censored everywhere as a result of the slippery slope of censorship.
Censorship is applied in different degrees in different places, yes, China is not the US is not Europe, but that doesn't signal the universal certainty that "time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again" seems to imply.
Maybe the slippery slope is just, like, a tiny slope? Maybe it's a slope but it's not as slippery as you think? Maybe there's more than one slope?
Or is it just a matter of time until the boot crushes all of our heads, or something?