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

91–100 of 305 posts

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

#91

Post by AlexCoventry »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #80
dangerbird2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> limiting free speech is wrong Enabling the spread of terrorist propaganda, like the blocked websites have been doing by hosting the Christchurch shooting video. You'd better believe if websites like Twitter and Youtube didn't self-censor ISIS propaganda like they did in 2014, many countries would be having their ISPs block those sites.

> if websites like Twitter and Youtube didn't self-censor ISIS propaganda like they did in 2014 People posted ISIS beheading videos to YouTube and caused a policy crisis (within YouTube). YouTube responded by deciding that the beheading videos should stay up because they were newsworthy. As shocking as one of those videos is, it notionally shows why ISIS is bad. Or at least, that's what they said. YouTube simultaneou…

The shooter's video is pretty weak sauce, compared to ISIS propaganda. It's a really bad look for him and his ideology, even, I imagine, for people who glory in violence. Who imagines that shooting a women in the back of the head as she's lying in the gutter crying for help will cast anything associated with the shooter in a good light?

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

#92

Post by mbo »

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…

Also of note is the Australian Bill of Rights.

Here's a link to a PDF of it:

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

#93

Post by oska »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #66
legostormtroopr wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Racial disharmony is illegal." Why? Why should racial disharmony be illegal? It sucks when people don't like you, maybe they have good reasons, maybe not - but legislating "harmony" just sounds wrong. Also, why are people allowed to loudly proclaim "white people are evil" loudly, and broadly, without issues - isn't that also racial disharmony?

Why? because Australia and NZ have large immigrant populations (in fact, are large immigrant populations) that contain many races. Racial disharmony causes huge problems, and creates the real possibility of violence, mayhem and bloodshed. As reasonable societies, these things are seen as bad and to be avoided. Consequently, actions that will create racial disharmony are illegal. You can hate on whoever you like, but…

> but you can't grab a megaphone, head down to the mall, and encourage other people to hate the same people that you do

Your example is a misdirection. What you describe is being a public nuisance in a public area, not free speech. I don't want to be subjected to nasty, racist rhetoric in a public space, just as I don't want to be harangued to repent of my sins and "Let Jesus into my life" in the same place. But I support the right of people to be able to express these views in a published form, or in closed spaces such as on a talking tour or in a church. In both cases audiences are seeking to be exposed to these views and are actively going to a place to find them, not having them pushed on them as they go about their ordinary lives.

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

#94

Post by gruez »

jen729w wrote: post #65
shard972 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe putting a teen in jail, now facing 10 years for sharing the video with an edgy comment.

Do you have a reputable source for this? All I can find is from fringe sites.

random search:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6820769/Teen-accuse...

>The accused teenage Facebook poster appeared in Christchurch District Court on Monday and was granted an interim name suppression order, but he was denied bail by Judge Stephen O'Driscoll.

https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/18/14/49/christchurch-shoot...

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

#95

Post by [deleted] »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #74
oska wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think supporters of Free Speech look to the American constitution? This seems like a strawman to me. Support for Free Speech has a very long and broad history, a great deal of which predates the founding of the USA and a great deal of which has been outside the USA. People across the world and throughout history don't like being silenced.

Not all peoples. Some cultures are "collective" (as opposed to the West's "individualistic") and value social harmony more than individual rights. In these cultures, speaking your mind when it causes any kind of disagreement or conflict is not encouraged and can lead to social penalties. This is not "the authorities" censoring free speech; this is family, friends and neighbours trying to maintain a harmonious communi…

[deleted]

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

#96

Post by zzo38computer »

If they censor in this way then they are not a real internet service and should not call that (nor should they be given the enough IPv4 address ranges like ISPs; so, maybe they will run out if they are not a real ISP!) (unless perhaps you can get rid of the censorships by disabling NAT which you would freely be allowed to do, maybe). Real internet connect through proper protocol routing to the address based only on the packet header, and not the port number or payload (unless the packet is directed to the ISP's servers anyways), for the purpose only to routing to the correct destination and to receive the correct reply (if the payload is incorrect, they should send it anyways; that is not for the ISP to consider unless the packet is directed at their own servers) (however, if the header is incorrect (including specifying addresses that are impossible, but not only if they are merely censored), then they can block it; note I mean the IP header, and not the TCP or UDP header, which is at the other level than the routing, so they should not tamper with). (For example, if the packet specifies 127.0.0.1 as the source or destination address, then they are allowed to block it; and if you do such thing too much, they can even warn you to correct your computer.)

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

#97

Post by oneplane »

ekianjo wrote: post #25
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.

What you might call 'weak' might be called 'sensible' by others. At the same time, not everyone peddling the 'constitutional' stuff actually knows what it contains or how it applies. Imagine other countries copying the slavery-like rules for jailed persons...

At the same time: freedom of speech goes about as far as what it causes; you are free to say what you want, but nobody has to give you a soap box or audience. That is the same thing that is basically happening in NZ. If you think the colour of your skin is better than the colour of someone else's skin, that's your issue and the internet/press/media etc aren't going to provide you with a platform. And if you try to do it anyway, you will get a reaction. (i.e. jail)

In the US, even with your constitution, you have similar situations. If you want to start a clan of people who dislike other people and try to have club meeting and put those in the newspaper or on TV, you will also get a reaction (jail, fines etc.).

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

#98

Post by RandomInteger4 »

jen729w wrote: post #68
legostormtroopr wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Racial disharmony is illegal." Why? Why should racial disharmony be illegal? It sucks when people don't like you, maybe they have good reasons, maybe not - but legislating "harmony" just sounds wrong. Also, why are people allowed to loudly proclaim "white people are evil" loudly, and broadly, without issues - isn't that also racial disharmony?

> Also, why are people allowed to loudly proclaim "white people are evil" loudly, and broadly, without issues Source? And I don’t mean calling the individual(s) in this case evil – which they are practically by definition – I mean broadly painting “white people” as being evil.

Either you're being disingenuous, ignorant, or lazy, but here. Simple Twitter Search for "white people are evil"

https://twitter.com/search?q=white%20people%20are%20evil&src...

EDIT: Ironically, many of those proclaiming such things are either the uber-woke SJW white people, or the black supremecist types.

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

#99

Post by doldge »

Jason_Genova wrote: post #70
doldge wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in what world is that concerning? They've been trying to discern if there was a cell of people around who harbour the same intent as this man, or if he was acting alone. New Zealand, a sovereign nation, has every right to request that information. The email was simply a case of whether the maintainer of the site would respond reasonably to a request from the NZ judicial system, or whether they would need to subpeona…

Wow I just checked the thread, most seem to be "online memesters" but there also seem to be some really bad people on there. I didn't understand the nature of the site. I'll remove my opening post - thanks for pointing this out. However, the fact that NZ police are looking for personal information of the site members, especially since the site is hosted outside NZ and by a non-NZ citizen still doesn't sit well with m…

depending on the scale of your operations, absolutely yes. This already exists in most nations specifically for eCommerce websites once they're earning more than a set amount from direct sales in that region.

Should Facebook, a company who profits by directly selling the data of the population, not be beholden to the laws that govern the people who's data they're selling?

Once a company is profiting from a certain number of people within in a given region, it seems reasonable for them to then be beholden to the laws that govern the people in that region. Otherwise it's too easy to skirt the legal system of a given country.

I don't know the size of the company in the original comment, so it's possible that they're not at that threshold with regards to the NZ population they serve, but companies like facebook and google are. It seems to reasonable to expect there offerings within NZ to comply with NZ law. Equally other websites should as well once they reach the given threshold (where-ever that is set).

I'm unclear on why the police, in the course on investigating a terrorist attack, asking for information about people who may be associated with the attacker (who was a non-national of the country he attacked) who are non-nationals themselves, would make you uncomfortable.

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

#100

Post by jjcm »

doldge wrote: post #82
shard972 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe putting a teen in jail, now facing 10 years for sharing the video with an edgy comment.

actions have consequences; whether those actions take place online or not. If what he did was hate speech, then it makes sense to charge him with it. That he did it online, or didn't realise that saying vile things would have undesirable consequences shouldn't excuse the behaviour. (N.B I think he should be charged with something, but I don't think prison time is a fair response to his actions).

Actions do have consequences, and the New Zealand government should be aware of this. Sentencing an 18 year old to 14 years in prison has the consequence of making them a non-functioning member of society in the future. This is not a reparative way to respond to what he did.
Post reply on HN