Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

privateinternetaccess.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 305 posts

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#21

Post by sebthedev »

aphextron wrote: post #3

The government of New Zealand’s entire response to the shooting incident, as well as the public’s cheering for it, is the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve ever seen. The level of authoritarian curbing of freedoms that has seemingly happened overnight at the stroke of a pen should seriously concern anyone who values constitutionally limited government. I’m all for the debate, but as an American it’s unimaginable t…

Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to?

Off the top of my head, the government has: used the existing regulatory system to temporarily halt sales of the sort weapons used in the terrorist attack; introduced legislation into parliament to permanently halt sales of the sort of weapons used in the attack, which will proceed through the regular legislative process; announced plans to investigate how the attack was not prevented by security services; and facilitated memorial services for victims.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#22

Post by huntie »

MBO35711 wrote: post #14

My apologies. Might I ask a question, please? How do we otherwise stop the internet being hacked to support these vile creatures?

I don't know what you mean by hacked, but this would have been less of an issue if New Zealand had not tried to censor it. The Streisand effect is very real. If you're looking for a technical solution, there is none. The most valuable feature of the Internet is its resistance to censorship. Cut off one head, and two more shall take its place.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#23

Post by doesnt_know »

huntie wrote: post #19
doesnt_know wrote: post #12

Not everyone holds the same absolute views on freedom of speech as those drawn up in the American constitution. There is also plenty of opposing views of a "constitutionally limited government" that seems to be at the heart of American culture. Frankly, it's pretty disturbing how many Americans are unable to comprehend that their way isn't the "only way" that can be valid. The New Zealand Bill of Rights provides free…

Americans are unable to comprehend it in the same way that the civilised world cannot comprehend enslaving another. Just as enslaving others is wrong, limiting free speech is wrong, and inherently contradictory. Limited speech is not free. It is time for the rest of the world to understand this, and the US could use a refresher as well.

Pretty disturbing you compare disallowing hate speech to enslaving someone. Also pretty ironic considering

> the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#24

Post by layoutIfNeeded »

sebthedev wrote: post #18

Those websites were distributing material that was illegal under New Zealand law (content relating to the recent terrorist attack). Any person in New Zealand who possesses objectionable content is liable for imprisonment for up to 10 years. Distributing the objectionable content can result in imprisonment for up to 14 years. The ISPs were simply declining to distribute or possess the objectionable content (which woul…

Reminds me of the first episode of Black Mirror, when the British PM is preparing for his act with the pig, his aides try to calm him by saying that the parliament have just passed a law that prohibits the possession of the material that’s about to be broadcasted.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#25

Post by ekianjo »

doesnt_know wrote: post #12

Not everyone holds the same absolute views on freedom of speech as those drawn up in the American constitution. There is also plenty of opposing views of a "constitutionally limited government" that seems to be at the heart of American culture. Frankly, it's pretty disturbing how many Americans are unable to comprehend that their way isn't the "only way" that can be valid. The New Zealand Bill of Rights provides free…

> Not everyone holds the same absolute views on freedom of speech as those drawn up in the American constitution

You are right about that. 99% of countries on Earth have weaker constitutional rights than the US in terms of Free Speech - if any right at all.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#26

Post by ekianjo »

doesnt_know wrote: post #23
huntie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are unable to comprehend it in the same way that the civilised world cannot comprehend enslaving another. Just as enslaving others is wrong, limiting free speech is wrong, and inherently contradictory. Limited speech is not free. It is time for the rest of the world to understand this, and the US could use a refresher as well.

Pretty disturbing you compare disallowing hate speech to enslaving someone. Also pretty ironic considering > the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners

Note that in the US the prison population has exploded since the mental institutions were closed (i.e. there was a transfer of people with mental problems to prisons) which explains also why you have this increased percentage compared to other countries.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#27

Post by incompatible »

sebthedev wrote: post #18

Those websites were distributing material that was illegal under New Zealand law (content relating to the recent terrorist attack). Any person in New Zealand who possesses objectionable content is liable for imprisonment for up to 10 years. Distributing the objectionable content can result in imprisonment for up to 14 years. The ISPs were simply declining to distribute or possess the objectionable content (which woul…

Do ISPs in NZ have no safe habour provisions? If one of their customers downloads or uploads something illegal, the ISP can be prosecuted too?

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#28

Post by erentz »

aphextron wrote: post #3

The government of New Zealand’s entire response to the shooting incident, as well as the public’s cheering for it, is the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve ever seen. The level of authoritarian curbing of freedoms that has seemingly happened overnight at the stroke of a pen should seriously concern anyone who values constitutionally limited government. I’m all for the debate, but as an American it’s unimaginable t…

> the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve ever seen. The level of authoritarian curbing of freedoms that has seemingly happened overnight at the stroke of a pen should seriously concern anyone who values constitutionally limited government.

Woah hold the hyperbole. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

What actions specifically are you even referring to? The change in gun laws? Australia banned semi-automatics. It’s survived. Pretty sure New Zealand will be okay without them too.

This post is about the ISPs banning sites, not something that the government of either country directed. (As the post makes clear Australia’s largest telco is also banning these sites.)

> I’m all for the debate, but as an American it’s unimaginable to see such reactionary, arbitrary, far sweeping action taken by a supposed free country with almost no discussion or legal process.

What was far sweeping and done with no discussion or legal process? You pretend like there isn’t a parliament with elected members, a far more representative and democratic parliament that any US government due to the use of proportional representation. This parliament is the legislative branch and can, well enact legislation, which is doing to ban semi automatic weapons based on the results of previous government enquiries into the matter that weren’t acted on.

(Talk about throwing stones here, seemingly nobody remembers 9/11 and the Patriot Act, and mass spying on Americans, and trillions spent on false wars that followed.)

A civil debate about the actions of these ISPs and the ability of private companies operating as utilities to censor or throttle or otherwise mess with neutrality of the utility they provide is very much warranted, but you’re not doing that here.

Re: ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent

#30

Post by incompatible »

sebthedev wrote: post #21
aphextron wrote: post #3

The government of New Zealand’s entire response to the shooting incident, as well as the public’s cheering for it, is the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve ever seen. The level of authoritarian curbing of freedoms that has seemingly happened overnight at the stroke of a pen should seriously concern anyone who values constitutionally limited government. I’m all for the debate, but as an American it’s unimaginable t…

Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to? Off the top of my head, the government has: used the existing regulatory system to temporarily halt sales of the sort weapons used in the terrorist attack; introduced legislation into parliament to permanently halt sales of the sort of weapons used in the attack, which will proceed through the regular legislative process; announced plans to inve…

So they haven't actually done anything to try to restrict the shooting video, at least on foreign websites (it may be illegal under existing NZ law?)

It suppose it wouldn't actually be hard for them to seize the copyright (perhaps with a new law if required) and start issuing DMCA takedowns or threats of lawsuits.

Post reply on HN