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

291–300 of 305 posts

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

#291

Post by DanBC »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #290
ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> No system is perfect but fuck me, you’re taking it to the extreme when you’re essentially defending child porn... It depends on what you consider extreme I guess. I am a parent. In the past 10 years, 1470 Queensland parents saw their children prosecuted as paedophiles [0]. The kids were sexting each other of course. To me that's beyond extreme, it borders on insanity. That may be because I come from a time when sha…

> I have not heard anybody say anything in support of child porn, which would be my definition of defending it.

Read the linked threads. There are people literally defending the possession of large quantities of images of child sexual abuse.

I'm being really careful with my language here: these are not people defending a single innocent image of your naked child playing in the bath. These are people defending possession of thousands of images of children being raped.

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

#292

Post by baud147258 »

throwaway8879 wrote: post #142
KidComputer wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

If someone wants to watch it, regardless of the intent, they should be allowed to. Disrespect should not be illegal. That's silly.

In a forum discussion on the shooting, I found a link. I clicked the link, realized it's the right video from descriptions and asked myself 'WTF am I doing? If I keep watching, that's going to have consequences for life and stopped.'.

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

#293

Post by baud147258 »

aphextron wrote: post #44
sebthedev wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to? Off the top of my head, the government has: used the existing regulatory system to temporarily halt sales of the sort weapons used in the terrorist attack; introduced legislation into parliament to permanently halt sales of the sort of weapons used in the attack, which will proceed through the regular legislative process; announced plans to inve…

>Which aspects of the New Zealand government's response do you object to? Namely the banning of the manifesto. Blocking images of violence is one thing. But making the leap to blocking ideas is on a whole other level. I’m all for de-platforming. No one should be forced to host your vile content, legal or not. But for the government of your country to ban a specific string of characters as a criminal matter is terrify…

I've seen purported extracts of the manifesto, they were mostly trolling

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

#294

Post by yongjik »

dang wrote: post #287
yongjik wrote: post #161

(A) An alt-right terrorist shoots up and kills 50, in a country where such things were unheard of. (B) The nation bans the terrorist's message. Half of HN: "Oh wait, now that sets a worrying precedent." Yes, HN, never change.

Would you please stop posting snarky comments about divisive topics on HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are? You've done it a lot, and the site guidelines ask you explicitly not to. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html , we'd appreciate it. You'll notice that they also include the following guideline, which your comment also broke: "Please respond to the…

You're right. I apologize.

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

#295

Post by CompanionCuuube »

ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #285
identity-haver wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one, your ability to defend your self and your family has been partially abrogated. Now it depends more on physical strength and the wealth to live in a safe area with other defenses. Second, your ability to access the internet has been shown to be arbitrarily limitable, kind of like China's great firewall. Third, your ability to speak and communicate about political issues has been tamped. Today it's possessing…

NZer's weren't stock piling guns to defend themselves with so your first argument just isn't valid to begin with. This isn't a government ordered blocking. NZ does have a govt blacklist but it isn't enforced, ISP's opt into it. My ISP didn't block anything. No one needs to read that manifesto to debate far right fascism.

One is not a stockpile under any reasonable definition.

Your government doesn't allow the ownership of guns for self-defense but so far it doesn't outright prohibit them from being used that way.

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

#296

Post by repolfx »

seventhtiger wrote: post #261
repolfx wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

In a democracy, random citizens can take over the government by winning elections. So where do you draw the line - if someone were to perceive an external threat where others were unwilling to speak up, and campaigned for election on that basis, would they get locked up? You'd make it so a government that was insufficiently prioritising self defence couldn't self correct.

This isn't a theoretical concern. Winston Churchill is an example of a politician who was warning of the dangers of Nazi Germany much earlier than other people were, he was nearly alone in the beginning at a time when other politicians were trying to make peace with Hitler or were openly unconcerned. Your proposal could easily have criminalised Churchill at the time when Britain needed him most.

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

#297

Post by peterashford »

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…

The NZ government did not censor the manifesto. The Chief Censor is independent from government. Likewise, they don't control the ISPs.

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

#298

Post by peterashford »

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…

The Chief Censor is independent from the NZ government.

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

#299

Post by peterashford »

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.

"Independence from central government The Classification Office is an independent Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act 2004, and so it performs its functions at 'arms length' from central government.

As a Crown entity the Classification Office is accountable to the New Zealand public - it must perform its functions efficiently, transparently, and in a financially responsible manner.

The Minister of Internal Affairs is responsible for managing the Government's relationship with the Classification Office."

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

#300

Post by Rebelgecko »

pryce wrote: post #253
Rebelgecko wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? I thought the ban only applied to semi-automatic guns, not pump or lever action.

The new restrictions also restrict shotguns with detachable magazines that can hold over a specific number of rounds, but I retract my statement as I have not been able to establish exactly which model of shotgun the perpetrator used.

He also had a lever action rifle although I don't know if he used it
Post reply on HN