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

>You can hate on whoever you like, but you can't grab a megaphone, head down to the mall, and encourage other people to hate the same people that you do. I don't know about you, but that seems like a pretty benign restriction to me...

Where do you draw the line? All of the items in this list (going from least inflammatory to most) could possibly be construed as causing "racial disharmony":

"We shouldn't give special benefits to [minority group] (eg. affirmative action)"

"[minority group] commit x% more crime than the rest of the population" (factual)

"I personally don't like [minority group]"

"We should enact legislation that specifically penalize [minority group]"

"I wish [minority group] would die/get hurt"

"We need to kill/hurt [minority group]"

"Let's go kill/hurt [minority group]"

For reference, the US criteria is somewhere between the last two (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger).

Well, your Bill of Rights is just a law passed by the Parliament. As such, it can be repealed by the Parliament, if and when they feel like it. This is your parliamentary sovereignty system at work.

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

Edit: any explanation for the downvote? Maybe the list was overkill, but I was responding to someone who accused another of being 'disingenuous, ignorant, or lazy', then presented very weak evidence for a claim that was supposed to be so obvious that questioning it justified those insults. (Basically no evidence at all, since it had nothing to do with New Zealand, the country which this discussion was specifically about)

Original:

When I looked at the top 20 results, they didn't back up your point very well. (I didn't do any cherrypicking -- I don't know what the 21st result was. If I wanted to be sneaky I would have only presented the first 10.)

I counted four people actually making that claim (one of whom qualified it with 'sometimes', but generalised it with 'all'). None of the four seemed to be from New Zealand.

The rest were mostly complaints about other people who supposedly think or say white people are evil. Some were definitely right-wing extremists.

The full list was:

- 'sometimes all white people are evil'

- complaint about white people being blamed for things and called evil

- anti-semite complaining about a Jewish man calling himself white

- someone saying "not all white people are evil, judge people by their character not their skin color"

- white supremacist

- person complaining about white people being called evil

- 'There’s still evil white people in the world, and we all know about the history between us and them, but y’all need to stop acting like EVERY white person is evil bruh. The people that do are a part of the problem too.'

- 'While Candace Owens can't believe this she is letting white conservatives at #CPAC believe this is true. This emboldens their view that the real victim of racism in America is white people. These words by Owens are beyond irresponsible-they are truly evil. '

- someone disagreeing with the view that 'Hitler is only considered to be evil because he killed white people'

- anti-semite

- person complaining about 'assholes ranting about how white people are evil'

- description of Jordan Peele's movie as 'the white people are evil movie'

- person saying it unironically

- person saying it unironically

- person complainiing about people who think that Democrats 'hate "white" people'

- complaint about people who say white people are evil

- ALL CAPS POST COMPLAINING ABOUT RACISM AGAINST WHITES

- 'These fucks here and people like these give white people a horrible rep. Can’t generalize a whole race like that tho.'

- person saying it unironically

- ' seeing conventionally attractive white people having excuses made for their evil actions is irritating AF'

> and why America has a political class unwilling to do something like socialize healthcare (even at a regional level)

I don't see how that's a correct statement. Half of Americans are in some form of government, socialized, healthcare system. Socialized healthcare is not only common in America (a quarter of the population is on fully socialized programs just in Medicaid/CHIP/etc), it's quite popular with about 2/3 of the population and the majority of politicians. The US spends about $650 billion just on the Medicaid + CHIP programs. Republicans hardly dare to go anywhere near Medicaid or Medicare these days. 30-40 years ago, the exact opposite was the case, Republicans (the traditional opposition party to socialized healthcare) frequently, commonly argued against nearly all forms of government healthcare. In the Reagan era, it was routine for prominent Republican politicians to call for privatized alternatives to Medicare. Today they won't dare go near that for fear of voter retribution. The most likely outcome over the next 10-15 years, is Medicaid will see continued expansion up the lower economic tiers and will cover 1/3 of the population on traditional socialized healthcare. Within probably 20 to 30 years, it'll only be the top 1/4 that will still be in the mostly private system. Socialized healthcare is taking over the US by default and necessity, its popularity will only increase by the year with the bottom 2/3 of the economic ladder.

You joke, but I'm convinced our police and government know even less about technology than in Australia where they tried to ban encryption.