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

261–270 of 305 posts

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

#261

Post by seventhtiger »

repolfx wrote: post #256
seventhtiger wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have to wait for the massacres and wait for the accusations. Inciting rhetoric can be defined. "Go kill them" is already illegal rhetoric. Why isn't "Get your guns and be ready. Something is happening. We are at war. They're coming to kill us." Violence, other than in direct physical self defense, should be the exclusive domain of the state.

That second example isn't "inciting violence", that's self defence! This should be obvious but how does your law work in a situation where, in fact, there is a war and there are people coming to kill us. Or are you naively believing that we live in some sort of utopian post-conflict era, in which self defence against armed groups will never be necessary?

The difference between mob justice and lawful justice is government. Declaration of war is the exclusive right of the government. How can random citizens declaring war be any less than incitement of violence?

Self defense is legally defined. It's not about a general fear of future outcomes. It's about preventing immediate physical harm. If you're urgently telling people to defend themselves from someone not even in the room, and is actually just a description of a group of people, then that's not self defense in any meaningful way. That's also incitement of violence.

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

#262

Post by repolfx »

vore wrote: post #213
legostormtroopr wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Your last paragraph shows the entire problem with this concept.

Whiteness is definitely a race. Thus saying "white people are evil" would seem to satisfy any definition of racial disharmony - how can it possibly depend on context? You appear to just be proving the original posters point that these laws are never actually enforced fairly: white people get targeted by hate all the time and the authorities don't care.

But Islam is not a race. There are white Muslims. Thus whatever hatred of Muslims is, it's not racism.

People routinely lump religious hatred under the rubric of "racism" partly because that word has been granted extraordinary power in our society, partly because there isn't a nice short word for "discrimination against certain religions" and partly because Muslim people tend to overwhelmingly come from certain parts of the world originally.

But regardless of why people do it, no logical definition of racial disharmony could cover shooting up a mosque. You'd need some other type of crime for that to be logically applicable. Or you'd need to define in law that Islam is a "race" you can opt in and out of at will.

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

#263

Post by DanBC »

DanBC wrote: post #226
pryce wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's weird that this got downvoted, because in every thread about images of child sexual abuse there's always one or two people, and usually different accounts, saying exactly this. They'll claim that it's ridiculous to outlaw a series of bits, or that the abuse has already happened and so how can these children still be affected by the images. A bunch of arguments are very similar (perhaps unknowingly so) to arguments made by organisations like NAMBLA.

It's easy to find these comments:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5782697

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486398#5487425

This whole thread is fucked up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5825087

A bunch of comments in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4495914#4497226

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736545

There are literally hundreds of comments on HN from a range of accounts defending the posession of images of child sexual abuse.

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

#264

Post by kdtsh »

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…

You can have your views about what constitutes free speech, but the fact that US constitution is interpreted as considering hate speech to be free speech is irrelevant to your response to OP, as NZ is not under the jurisdiction of the US. The video does break NZ laws, and the steps that have been taken to prevent its dissemination follow from that. Also, war documentaries generally contain footage of conflicts which have a basis in law, while disseminating ISIS beheadings may be illegal (but IANAL).

As others have pointed out, most countries allow for exceptions to free speech in cases constituting hate speech - the fact that the US does not is a neutral fact, and an appeal to free speech absolutism doesn’t really constitute an argument for why other countries should uphold the same standards of free speech.

On Australia: we have a different political system here to the US, which is similar to NZ. While our governments are different to the UK in that parliament has enumerated powers, we don’t require fundamental rights to be explicitly defined in the constitution. The provision for freedom of political speech for instance was built up when it became apparent that the way in which we want our society to operate requires such an interpretation of our constitution. On the other hand, the US system requires a constitutional amendment for issues relating to constitutional law and fundamental rights outlined in the constitution. Both systems have their merits and demerits, but the fact that ours doesn’t work in the way that the US’s does isn’t an argument against it.

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

#265

Post by ElCapitanMarkla »

sintaxi wrote: post #187
XorNot wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Preventing radicalization is a presumption without supporting evidence. The New Zealand authorities have essentially made it illegal to disagree that that the video and manifesto is valid justification for taking away rights and freedoms because informed disagreement would require to view the content which is punishable with a sentence up to 14 years. Do you really not see the problem here? If the video and manifesto…

How do you apply what you’ve said to something like child porn. I think we can agree that we don’t need to see Subway Jared’s collection ourselves but we’re totally happy for the government to lock him up.

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

#266

Post by ElCapitanMarkla »

steanne wrote: post #208
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…

it actually seems pretty effective. i don't know his name. i'm sure i've come across it once or twice in reports on the event, but not enough times for it to actually stick.

I was thinking about I can’t remember his name earlier. I think that is a fantastic outcome.

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

#267

Post by [deleted] »

DanBC wrote: post #226
pryce wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#268

Post by ElCapitanMarkla »

DanBC wrote: post #263
DanBC wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's weird that this got downvoted, because in every thread about images of child sexual abuse there's always one or two people, and usually different accounts, saying exactly this. They'll claim that it's ridiculous to outlaw a series of bits, or that the abuse has already happened and so how can these children still be affected by the images. A bunch of arguments are very similar (perhaps unknowingly so) to argumen…

Actual w t f reading those.

Wonder if any of the people commenting there have kids of their own.

No system is perfect but fuck me, you’re taking it to the extreme when you’re essentially defending child porn...

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

#269

Post by Throwway32 »

DuskStar wrote: post #191
Throwway32 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were to say, make a pro-ISIS video, or Tweet, would you expect to remain unmolested by the authorities in the United States? All societies set boundaries on what is acceptable speech.

I would expect making a pro-ISIS video/tweet to leave me without additional molestation from the government, yes. Probably wouldn't stay up on YouTube, but other sites don't seem to have a problem with such things. (stereotypically, that would be LiveLeak) You can check out the list of exceptions to free speech in the US here [0]. I disagree with a number of them, but an "ISIS is awesome and this is why" video would…

I would expect making a pro-ISIS video/tweet to leave me without additional molestation from the government, yes

If you made pro-ISIS materials, you can expect the US government to closely monitor you, and quite likely attempt to entrap you.[1]

If you made large numbers of pro-ISIS videos, even if you were a US citizen, there would be a strong possibility that you would be killed [2]

[1] https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2018/07/fbi_arrest_of_clevel...

[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-a...

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

#270

Post by RandomInteger4 »

VorticesRcool wrote: post #245
RandomInteger4 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point wasn't to say that the percentage of X posts to Y posts was Z%. The point was to say that these posts and sentiments exist and here is a way to find some almost guaranteed with one simple search; i.e. it's not hard to find this sentiment around the internet. If you've lived at any point in a social circle that involved wholeness you will see this sentiment displayed and defended. The whole idea of racism in…

What does this have to do with New Zealand?

What does new zealand have to do with my addressing the parent comment to my original comment? My point was directly relevant to that comment and it's sad that someone flagged it.
Post reply on HN