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

221–230 of 305 posts

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

#221

Post by int_19h »

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.

I didn't change my opinion while in US. Quite the opposite, it was one of the reasons why I moved here in the end - I was a Canadian permanent resident already when I had to choose between pursuing citizenship there, or starting it all over in US. I do not regret that choice.

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

#222

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#223

Post by akerro »

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…

Should youtube be banned for storing 100 000s of copies of WTC attack?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wtc+9%2F11+foot...

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

#224

Post by NeedMoreTea »

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…

Point is, it appears to be solely the US that holds its constitution in divine reverence as having already achieved perfection. (Only slightly tongue in cheek here)

Other nations have been more free amending their constitutions. Nations without written constitutions often consider that a feature not a bug. These can bend things out of shape differently. :)

It is perfectly possible to speak against the government, any government, without being racist, or inciting hate. It is not possible to speak against a government if you can't ridicule or caricature the head of state, or party a. Thus you can have free speech without also giving unlimited licence to be an offensive, racist jerk without consequence.

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

#225

Post by antpls »

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…

> 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.

Is there any scientific public study available to support your claim ? Plotting followers over time and correlating by media appearance time isn't doable for most citizen. Do you have any proof, source, concrete results to share with everyone ?

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

#226

Post by DanBC »

pryce wrote: post #166
hodgesrm wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NZ's reaction seems pretty reasonable to me. They just had 50+ people brutally murdered. Their political and business leaders seem to be focused on preventing it from happening again. If you want to criticize their response I think you need to show how your proposal would prevent further radicalism. The people involved in the white power movement are dangerous if enough of them get together. That's essentially what h…

This white supremacist, terrorist massacre in NZ was livestreamed, I'm not aware of that ever happening before. What to do with this footage is in some sense uncharted territory. The video is a graphic video of a massacre and simultaneously propaganda produced by the perpetrator of that massacre. It is a peculiar idea that we as a society cannot legitimately decide that this footage is objectionable in the same way c…

> the same way child porn is objectionable

I agree with you, but a disturbing number of people on HN think that images of child sexual abuse should not be illegal.

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

#227

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#228

Post by antpls »

XorNot wrote: post #136
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 for…

> Because who cares what you had to say - it's irrelevant.

I do care about what everyone has to say. I'm interested to access any real footage of the reality to cross-check what we are told, and make my own opinion.

If people are expecting to stop violence by censoring information, they might first look at banning firearms...

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

#229

Post by hestefisk »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #153
hestefisk wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech doesn’t mean the right to insult or spread unlawful things online. Whilst I do find it concerning that the ISPs are self-censoring, blocking access to a video of an act that contradicts all of our democratic rights (freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom of thought) can hardly offend anyone. Free speech is the right to express an opinion without being penalised. Left wing and right wing lunatic…

> Free speech doesn’t mean the right to insult Actually it does. Even hate speech is free speech in the US. > or spread unlawful things online That's not a free speech violation then. The video in question is not classified, doesn't break any laws, it just depicts a horrible act. Should we make all war documentaries illegal too? > Free speech is the right to express an opinion without being penalised So you just cont…

Good point. I agree with you.

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

#230

Post by telesilla »

tootahe45 wrote: post #124
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…

I think one of the core reasons they don't want people to read it is that in the aftermath they're doing everything he wanted and more.

I read another powerful comment somewhere, to paraphrase:

Who cares what he wanted, what his manifesto said. He isn't some wise person we look up to, he isn't a fortune teller. He's a sick person with a twisted view on our world. He doesn't get to say what our future looks like.

Post reply on HN