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

131–140 of 305 posts

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

#131

Post by int_19h »

dangerbird2 wrote: post #35
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.

> 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.

How do you know if they're terrorist propaganda, once they're blocked?

IIRC the Australian ISPs refused to even release the list of the websites that they block - what we have is just things that are known not to work.

What happened to checks and balances in a democratic society? Why is the private industry acting on its own on behalf of the government? Where's the oversight?

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

#132

Post by apostacy »

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…

Thank you, very well said! I'm also disappointed with the response on HN as supposedly free governments cut off entire chunks of the Internet. Any concern about this is met with "but if we don't kill the Internet then the Nazis will win!"

I'm most horrified by people's defense of the government getting really good at arresting people for "trolling"[1]

[1]: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-peo...

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

#133

Post by int_19h »

rbg246 wrote: post #42
huntie wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I agree that the US has an incarceration problem. We're certainly not perfect, and I think much of the problem is due to the US's drug problem. Regardless, comparing incarceration to slavery is disingenuous as slavery requires no wrongdoing whereas incarceration should require wrongdoing. As for my comparison of disallowing hate speech to slavery, it is a very valid comparison. The two are morally reprehensibl…

I don't see any problem with a government who is freely elected enacting laws that disallow hate speech. To assist with balancing these rights and restrictions there is an independent judiciary and court system that moderates these laws and works out whether they have gone too far.

So long as you can ensure that discussing what is and isn't hate speech is never classified as hate speech itself.

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

#134

Post by KidComputer »

huntie wrote: post #122
myrandomcomment wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, please show me the act of parliament done in the light of day that made this illegal? The video SHOULD NOT BE WATCHED. It stand for everything I as a human abhor. However it is slippy slope, that leads to no good end.

I don't know what you mean by "act of parliament". This video should most definitely be watched in order to understand this event in full. No description of what happened can impart upon you the brutality of watching him go back in to double tap the victims. There is a severe lack of understanding of the impact of our actions when we choose to censor events like this.

People lost their lives terribly, that much can be understood without watching it. What more do you really gain by watching the video? Do you have some morbid curiosity that you need to satisfy? Do you think we should disregard the feelings of the survivors or those who lost someone close? How do you think they feel about the video being shared? How would you? Do you think they deserve respect and solidarity? If so, how does sharing the video contribute to that?

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

#135

Post by huntie »

cam_l wrote: post #102
huntie wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ev…

For your second example, I don't think that violates freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the freedom to voice an opinion without fear of retaliation. Forcing others to listen to your speech seems tantamount to slavery.

I think that your first example is also not a violation, as it is not an opinion. I think that this example reveals a more potent problem: what do we classify as opinion? As to that, I have no answer; I am no philosopher.

As for the morality of restricting others' right to free speech, it is definitely a difficult problem. Morally I think that you have no right to silence others because you disagree with their opinion. There is some nuance here; if HN deletes a post advertising viagra I don't think this is silencing someone. Similarly, deleting a post containing the results of a football game to a programming forum is also not silencing someone. There is an aspect of relevancy at play. If you choose to operate a general purpose forum, morally you are pretty limited in what it is acceptable to silence.

These are just my off-the-cuff thoughts. I might be missing something obvious here; it seems like a confounding problem.

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

#136

Post by XorNot »

jjcm wrote: post #109

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…

No they haven't.

What they're doing is preventing the spread of radicalization to vulnerable demographics. They're breaking up the ability of alt-right groups to try and rally around it.

You don't get to shoot a bunch of people and have your manifesto spread far and wide. You get forgotten. And your manifesto gets banned. Because who cares what you had to say - it's irrelevant.

As to the video: go extract release forms from the families of the victims in it if you want to see to see it. See if they're okay with the last terrified moments of their loved ones being distributed as and broadcast worldwide, and the government okaying the sharing of that. It would be illegal to go to a hospital and film people dying in bed without permission - and it would exact significant criminal and financial penalties if you did so. This is worse.

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

#137

Post by anfilt »

PostOnce wrote: post #17
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…

The New Zealand Bill of Rights is the single most toothless, feeble, pointless piece of legislation I have ever read. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/D... Literally everything else overrides it, if I'm reading this right: -------- Other enactments not affected No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights),— (a)h…

Man that's not worth the paper it's written on then....

How is the NZ government related though...

This is ISPs just deciding to block sites.

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

#138

Post by int_19h »

NickNameNick wrote: post #60
white-flame wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hole in information caused by the censorship is causing people to come up with and perpetuate all sorts of crazy accusations and conspiracies about what "really" happened or why. The truth and fact of the what (video) and why (manifesto) is important clarification to the situation. Censorship is causing mystery, unrest, and false blame.

There is no mystery whatsoever. The video is footage of someone murdering people, and the manifesto is a mess right wing islamophobia and strange call-outs. Both are offensive both at a basic human level, and under the legal definition here in NZ. There's no information hole - the contents of the video and the manifesto have been very widely reported. What do you really expect to learn that you can't already learn fr…

> and the manifesto is a mess right wing islamophobia

Except it's not - it's a mess of a "third position" white ethnonationalism.

And I know it because I could read it.

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

#139

Post by nemothekid »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #56
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…

> "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

Because, this far, your point is pure whataboutism decrying an issue that doesn’t exist.

Come back with this argument when someone walks into a church/mosque and mows down dozens of people. Comparing a few trolls crying on twitter that “white people are evil” to Charleston or Christchurch is asinine

Post reply on HN