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

231–240 of 305 posts

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

#231

Post by telesilla »

oska wrote: post #183
colejohnson66 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is banning a string of characters terrifying, but not a string of bits?

In my opinion aphextron was being overly reductionist in describing the manifesto as just a string of characters. The manifesto was a presentation of a political viewpoint (and perhaps a call to action - I don't know, I haven't read it). The manifesto qualifies as speech. The video was a record of a criminal act of great violence. I wouldn't classify the video as speech. (In contrast, a fictional portrayal of the sam…

New Zealand, and many other parts of the world, do not share the U.S.'s "free speech" concept. Speech is not protected and yet the country is high on the freedom of press index.

https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/new-zealand/

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

#232

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

jpollock wrote: post #154

New Zealand has operated a country-wide content filter for years. It is primarily used to filter out "content depicting the sexual abuse or exploitation of children and young persons" [1]. Filtering of objectionable content is entirely within the social norms of New Zealand. For comparison, since the video and manifesto have been labelled "objectionable" [2] it would be illegal to burn either to a disk and then carry…

Questions of appropriateness in this scenario put aside, the fact that an internet filter which started for "please think of the children" reasons has expanded in scope is eminently predictable.

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

#233

Post by seventhtiger »

antpls wrote: post #225
seventhtiger wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

It's just my anecdotal observation, but I offered a possible way to measure it. It would make for an interesting report.

I didn't want to define what a radical is, or what the new incitement of violence which includes indirect incitement would be. I wanted to focus on my point that this is about interpretation of an existing law that forbid certain speech, and not about imposing new restrictions on constitutional rights.

Personally, I think it's not right that we differentiate between "Go kill them" and "They're coming to kill us. Keep your guns close. Protect your family. They are doing horrible things. War is imminent. Something will happen soon. We're in danger. You and your family will be killed."

The second example is just as much an incitement of violence as the first. But it is not only legal, it is widely practiced.

This is "won't someone rid me of this turbulent priest?" on a massive scale.

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

#234

Post by robocat »

myrandomcomment wrote: post #113
doldge wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actions have consequences; whether those actions take place online or not. If what he did was hate speech, then it makes sense to charge him with it. That he did it online, or didn't realise that saying vile things would have undesirable consequences shouldn't excuse the behaviour. (N.B I think he should be charged with something, but I don't think prison time is a fair response to his actions).

Hate speech, is protected speech in my mind, no matter how abhorrent. The founding fathers of the USA had a reason for the 1st amendment. You milage may vary in your location, but at the end of the day, censorship of speech is very very slipper slope. This type of speech needs to be countered by education and by people standing up and saying "we will not listen", not a bureaucrat. Allowing the government to censor wh…

> The founding fathers of the USA had a reason for the 1st amendment.

When the 1st amendment was written the US had approximately the same population as new Zealand does now (4M versus 5M). New Zealand is about the size and popolation of Oregon.

Our political landscape is wildly different, simply because we are so much smaller, and we don't have states.

Our politicians and our government are not "them": they are us. This is the general feeling towards the Muslim community too We all (including our politicians) see the affects of policy upon our friends and family, because most New Zealanders have direct connections to a range of backgrounds.

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

#235

Post by NZ_Matt »

jjcm wrote: post #100
doldge wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actions have consequences; whether those actions take place online or not. If what he did was hate speech, then it makes sense to charge him with it. That he did it online, or didn't realise that saying vile things would have undesirable consequences shouldn't excuse the behaviour. (N.B I think he should be charged with something, but I don't think prison time is a fair response to his actions).

Actions do have consequences, and the New Zealand government should be aware of this. Sentencing an 18 year old to 14 years in prison has the consequence of making them a non-functioning member of society in the future. This is not a reparative way to respond to what he did.

Guh, I'm done with the internet for today. No one has been sentenced to 14 years in prison for this and they won't be, the lack of informed people participating in these discussions kills me.

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

#236

Post by ignoramous »

jjcm wrote: post #179
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…

> 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…

> That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten.

Pretty much this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Also, govt (democratic ones, esp) are notorious for being short-sighted and taking populist measures, so no surprises here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

Imo, what the govt should considering doing (if they haven't already):

1. Weed out rouge elements (sadly, extensive surveillance is one way to achieve this, another would be with help of citizen-journalists/investigators) within the state, and secure immigration points

2. A focused task force to address internal threats and give them a degree of autonomy.

3. A memorial to immortalize the victims.

4. Govt mandated security at places of congregation of all sizes (malls, stations, places of worship, parks).

Edit: /s

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

#237

Post by ElCapitanMarkla »

jjcm wrote: post #179
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…

> 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…

I disagree. I’d rather it was banned and this shit gets squashed. Yeah it’s still available and people can try seek it out, but they have to seek it out. No one on Facebook will be sharing it on their wall, etc.

And this isn’t a one or the other thing, NZ has banned that crap and rallied around the families. A huge amount of money has been raise of which the total is still rising. The whole country stopped on Friday for a national call to prayer followed by 2 minutes silence.

Other countries might be making a big deal about the banning but it’s not the key headline here.

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

#238

Post by identity-haver »

ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #146
mnm1 wrote: post #64

So just like after 9/11 in the US, the terrorists win. They scare the powers that be into making life worse for an entire country's citizens. I guess people never learn from history. Both corporations and the government end up doing the terrorists' bidding while thinking they are protecting people. The people have no say. I bet the shooters are laughing from their cells just like al quada did from its caves. Terroris…

Why do you say life is worse here? We’ve banned most semi auto guns. And his writing and video have been classed as objectionable... Why’s my life worse off for the governments actions?

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 somebody else's anti-Muslim manifesto that gets you 10 years, tomorrow it's an anti-party manifesto. Let me take a look through all your private messages and documents, and believe me, I will find something that I can "class as objectionable".

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

#239

Post by nat8265639392 »

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.

Should I also watch rape videos? Videos of kids being molested? Animal abuse? Just so I understand those events ‘in full’? That’s absurd to me.

Should the events be discussed? Absolutely. But I don’t have to watch these things to understand how abhorrent they are.

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

#240

Post by oska »

telesilla wrote: post #231
oska wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion aphextron was being overly reductionist in describing the manifesto as just a string of characters. The manifesto was a presentation of a political viewpoint (and perhaps a call to action - I don't know, I haven't read it). The manifesto qualifies as speech. The video was a record of a criminal act of great violence. I wouldn't classify the video as speech. (In contrast, a fictional portrayal of the sam…

New Zealand, and many other parts of the world, do not share the U.S.'s "free speech" concept. Speech is not protected and yet the country is high on the freedom of press index. https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/new-zealand/

I'm not from the USA and I didn't make any reference to the US in my comment. I've already dealt with this false argument elsewhere in the thread. [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19473330

Post reply on HN