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

211–220 of 305 posts

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

#211

Post by seventhtiger »

Nasrudith wrote: post #173
marcus_holmes wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what about "collective" cultures that don't prize individualism? If you are discouraged from saying something because it will cause social disharmony within your community, is that as morally wrong as slavery? I think not. I think capturing someone from their home, their country, their loved ones, transporting them across an ocean, beating them, making them work for the rest of their lives without pay, while starving…

To be frank 'collective' cultures seems to be a cop-out trope to excuse authoritarianism as 'just part of their culture' mixed with exoticism. It would be like excusing warlords as 'just a part of the culture' when everyone who isn't a part of his army wants him dead but is too afraid to take action and is essentially complicity in manufactured consent. A true collective culture would have no need for laws as cudgels…

Isn't the logical conclusion to your argument anarchy? Isn't democracy just a populist brand of authoritarianism?

The utility of all laws and enforcement in general can't be used to argue against a specific law.

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

#212

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #209
jjcm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You get forgotten That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. We see Tiananmen Square pop up all the time not because of its major historical significance, but because of the attempts by certain governments to censor it. There are better ways to forget something collectively as a culture. Right now if you google "New Zealand shooting", half of the articles are about the bann…

[deleted]

[deleted]

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

#213

Post by vore »

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?

"Racial disharmony" is clearly the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. Of course you can legislate against racial disharmony: in the US, race is a protected class.

Is proclaiming "white people are evil" racial disharmony? Depends on the context. Is proclaiming "Muslims are evil" and shooting up two mosques racial disharmony? Definitely.

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

#214

Post by mallets »

hackerman12345 wrote: post #196
beachy wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attitudes are different in NZ from the US. There is no right to bear arms, and self defense is not a valid reason to hold a firearm licence. An overwhelming majority of people believe that military style weapons have no place in society, and that those guns - though not all guns - are too dangerous, and that accordingly yes, you must hand them over.

Even if an overwhelming majority of people believe state shootings (with guns) of people who won't hand them over is moral and ok in society.. the point of my reply still stands and has nothing to do with the right to self-defense etc. There are plenty of times in history when overwhelming majorities beliefs took away minority rights. When reading the wrong words can get you 10 years in prison, it probably does trend…

Minorities are always at the mercy of the majority opinion, no 'rights' or whatever is going to change that.

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

#215

Post by calcifer »

int_19h wrote: post #128
oneplane wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

Or it might be called "weak" by others. I'm not an American, but I agree with him. You say that one is "free to say what you want", but then immediately describe a case of a person literally saying what's on their mind and getting jailed for that. You're welcome to argue in favor of such censorship, but whether it does or does not have a valid reason, it's still censorship - and so not free by definition. Oh, and the…

> I'm not an American, but I agree with him.

You've been living in the US for more than a decade, so I don't think your "even me, a non-American, agrees with him!" card is as strong as you think.

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

#216

Post by cco »

I would encourage everybody who was taken aback by the shooting to read the manifesto, if you are legally allowed to. It helped me better understand this groundswell of overt racism we've seen in the last few years and, by an inverse reading of it, provided some strategies on how we might resist it.

If you're there type of person that reads this manifesto and thinks, "yes I agree with this and I should do what it says" then you'd also react the same way to Mein Kampf and you're already a violent racist. These writings provide really valuable insights into what drives these abhorrent political movements and how to counteract them. They don't go away if you close your eyes.

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

#217

Post by [deleted] »

calcifer wrote: post #215
int_19h wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it might be called "weak" by others. I'm not an American, but I agree with him. You say that one is "free to say what you want", but then immediately describe a case of a person literally saying what's on their mind and getting jailed for that. You're welcome to argue in favor of such censorship, but whether it does or does not have a valid reason, it's still censorship - and so not free by definition. Oh, and the…

> I'm not an American, but I agree with him. You've been living in the US for more than a decade, so I don't think your "even me, a non-American, agrees with him!" card is as strong as you think.

[deleted]

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

#218

Post by sdwisely »

seventhtiger wrote: post #203
sintaxi wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The manifesto includes direct calls to violence. So promoting and spreading the manifesto in that way should be a crime. However, reading and sharing the material for informing ones self should be seen as right that one has - especially since it is being used as justification to take rights and freedoms away.

Any radical voice that made the news, in any light, has gotten a larger following. Every single time a moderate brings a radical to debate it is a net gain for the radical. You can measure this by simply plotting the number of various social media followings such voices have, and plotting them against time and marking notable appearances. If someone is so radical they reject all authority, whether it's political or s…

> I'm for better prosecution of incitement of violence. This should also include spreading of false information designed to create a false sense of distress and push people to violence.

I think this is the only option that ticks all the boxes for the solution I've been trying to find in my head.

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

#219

Post by versteegen »

rgbrenner wrote: post #119
erentz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common misconception that this is directed by the government, like Mubarak ordering the internet cut off or something. The Office of Film and Literature classification reviews and classified media material in NZ, similar to how the MPAA does for films in the USA. It can also classify materials as “objectionable” at which point they become illegal to possess or trade (except by certain request, eg if you’re an academi…

Is that a typo in your first sentence? Saying the government is NOT directing an action, when it's a government agency makes no sense. It would be like me saying the US government doesn't have any control over boeing's planes because that's the FAA's job. And the government is literally arresting people for distributing the video. I'm really struggling to see how this could be construed as a non-government action.

"The Government" (in NZ at least, I imagine also in many other countries with parliamentary systems) is very often used to mean the parties/politicians in charge. Short for "the governing parties," basically. Clearly that's what was meant: that arrests can not be directed from the top.

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

#220

Post by robocat »

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…

Incorrect.

The ISPs blocked within hours. It wasn't declared objectionable until much later.

There are catch all rules for objectionable content, but our ISPs weren't applying those rules to those websites even though they carry much equivalent content.

I don't know if they blocked at request of the politicians or police. But it is very possible the ISPs management and techos just did it. These are not huge organisations!

Post reply on HN