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

101–110 of 305 posts

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

#101

Post by doldge »

mnm1 wrote: post #77
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…

> If that maintainer of that site is serving content to New Zealand, that it seems reasonable that he should be beholden to NZ laws. So should be also be beholden to Chinese, Saudi Arabian, Russian, North Korean, and other governments' laws for simply having a website? That's beyond absurd and by that line of reasoning, most website operators should be jailed in some country or other. This is one of the most absurd a…

see my reply to the sibling comment. I would also ask you to be charitable in your reading of my words.

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

#102

Post by cam_l »

huntie wrote: post #51
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even the USA permits unlimited free speech. Memorably the US once limited speech against speaking out against conscription - under the 1918 sedition act - which led to the now famous free speech quote of "calling fire in a crowded theatre". The US still has a crime of, and recent prosecutions for sedition! A crime abolished as a relic in some other places. Pot, kettle, black? :)

You need to reread what I wrote. I very explicity acknowledged that the US has problems with freedom of speech. Just the other day an executive order was signed in an attempt to restore free speech at public universities. The US constitution is very clear in its wording on free speech: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech". It is unfortunate that our judiciary has chosen to turn a blind e…

I also am unequivocal about the fundamental human right of free speech, I also don't think it should be limited to US citizens. But I do accept that the effects of speech need necessarily be taken into account.

If an immigrant overstaying their Visa publicly declares their status to an immigration agent, they can get deported. Did this violate their right to free speech? If a person's public speech is so vile that everyone agrees to not listen to them, does this violate their right?

What we are actually talking about in this case, is morally (because of course, we have no rights to free speech in Australia) what are the acceptable restrictions that should be placed on people or businesses, to restrict others rights to speech?

And is the restricting of the right to silence others (say on your platform), in itself not a kind of restriction of right to your own speech?

This is much, much more difficult to answer consistently.

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

#103

Post by seem_2211 »

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…

Agreed. I grew up in NZ and now live in America. There are distinct cultural differences that really do separate the two countries.

The need for freedom and privacy (although really is a bit of a joke considering the power of the federal government) is one that's really important to Americans. Kiwis don't really have that inherent distrust of the government in the same way, and our equivalent idea is that we're all more or less equal citizens. That's why gun bans are pretty easy to put through in NZ (the safety of the collective is less important than the personal freedom of the individual), and why America has a political class unwilling to do something like socialize healthcare (even at a regional level).

In my experience, if you're selling a political ideal to an American, emphasize personal freedom. If you're selling a political ideal to a New Zealander emphasize fairness.

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

#104

Post by sarcasmOrTears »

mnm1 wrote: post #64

So just like after 9/11 in the US, the terrorists win. They scare the powers that be into making life worse for an entire country's citizens. I guess people never learn from history. Both corporations and the government end up doing the terrorists' bidding while thinking they are protecting people. The people have no say. I bet the shooters are laughing from their cells just like al quada did from its caves. Terroris…

He evn wrote in the manifesto that the current nz goverment reaction was what he wanted.

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

#105

Post by cam_l »

layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #24
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Anthem_%28Black_M...

See also..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate

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

#106

Post by gruez »

shard972 wrote: post #58
sebthedev wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Bingo. I find it strange how all the replies to aphextron's top level comment automatically assumed it was about the assault rifle ban, and didn't even consider the government's ban on distribution of the shooter's video and manifesto. Maybe it's OP's fault for not being more specific, but the replies are definitely opting for the "easier" argument.

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

#107

Post by versteegen »

jjcm wrote: post #100
doldge wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody's been convicted of anything yet. And certainly not 14 years in prison. Mentioning the maximum sentence for a class of crime is hyperbole.

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

#109

Post by jjcm »

The problem with censoring and banning the information outright (in the case of NZ) is that it gives power to the manifesto. So much of what Jacinda Ardern said after the shooting was about denying the person a platform:

"We, in New Zealand, will give him nothing. Not even his name."

"He sought many things from his act of terror, but one was notoriety, and that is why you will never hear me mention his name."

And yet by the ISPs banning sites and with the New Zealand government classifying the manifesto as objectionable, they've done just that. They've told the people that the manifesto and the video are notorious by their decisions around it. They've put it on a pedestal and said, "this here holds power, and we should be scared of those who consume it".

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

#110

Post by int_19h »

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).

The question isn't whether what he did was "hate speech", but whether the definition of "hate speech" that can be utilized for this purpose makes any sense in a free society.
Post reply on HN