NationStates

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:48 pm**

Salus Maior wrote:
Galloism wrote:Very first thing I thought of.

He sounds like an absolutely lovely human being and all and is probably guilty of something, but I’m not much of a fan of banning “disturbing footage” from being possessed or shared.

Seems pretty authoritarian.

I think it's pretty fair to prevent terrorist propaganda from being used.

I have a concern regarding said classification.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:50 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
I think it's pretty fair to prevent terrorist propaganda from being used.

I have a concern regarding said classification.

Well we have a good definition of what "terrorist" and maybe "propoganda" are so I don't see the problem.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:55 pm**

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Galloism wrote:I have a concern regarding said classification.

Well we have a good definition of what "terrorist" and maybe "propoganda" are so you really shouldn't have a problem.

Governments don't have a particularly good track record of classifying stuff within reasonable limits.

Let's keep in mind Russia banned The Watchtower as "extremist literature" for pete's sake, which is not far off from "terrorist propaganda".

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:56 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
I think it's pretty fair to prevent terrorist propaganda from being used.

I have a concern regarding said classification.

Something that's going to inspire others to do the same.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:57 pm**

Salus Maior wrote:
Galloism wrote:I have a concern regarding said classification.

Something that's going to inspire others to do the same.

I also have a concern regarding that classification.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:57 pm**

Galloism wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Well we have a good definition of what "terrorist" and maybe "propoganda" are so you really shouldn't have a problem.

Governments don't have a particularly good track record of classifying stuff within reasonable limits.

Let's keep in mind Russia banned The Watchtower as "extremist literature" for pete's sake, which is not far off from "terrorist propaganda".

JW's are extremists.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:58 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Something that's going to inspire others to do the same.

I also have a concern regarding that classification.

Murder innocent people en mass.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:00 pm**

Salus Maior wrote:
Galloism wrote:Governments don't have a particularly good track record of classifying stuff within reasonable limits.

Let's keep in mind Russia banned The Watchtower as "extremist literature" for pete's sake, which is not far off from "terrorist propaganda".

JW's are extremists.

Uh huh. The peaceful people who refused to fight for Hitler.

Salus Maior wrote:
Galloism wrote:I also have a concern regarding that classification.

Murder innocent people en mass.

Better ban it.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:00 pm**

Stupid he did nothing wrong

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:02 pm**

Khataiy wrote:Stupid he did nothing wrong

Sharing a video of a shooting to people who aren't authorities (ex: police-types) isn't wrong?

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:04 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
JW's are extremists.

Uh huh. The peaceful people who refused to fight for Hitler.

Salus Maior wrote:
Murder innocent people en mass.

Better ban it.

That doesn't negate the bad they do.

I don't see any videos of the people in the process of being gassed, nor do I see any positive spin being put on it or it being turned into a meme.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:04 pm**

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Khataiy wrote:Stupid he did nothing wrong

Sharing a video of a shooting to people who aren't authorities (ex: police-types) isn't wrong?

Historically, not really.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:04 pm**

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Sharing a video of a shooting to people who aren't authorities (ex: police-types) isn't wrong?

In my eyes, no its not. By American standards, it'd be allowed.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:06 pm**

Saiwania wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Sharing a video of a shooting to people who aren't authorities (ex: police-types) isn't wrong?

In my eyes, no its not. By American standards, it'd be allowed.

Says the guy who was fellating the shooter the week it happened.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:07 pm**

Galloism wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Well we have a good definition of what "terrorist" and maybe "propoganda" are so you really shouldn't have a problem.

Governments don't have a particularly good track record of classifying stuff within reasonable limits.

Let's keep in mind Russia banned The Watchtower as "extremist literature" for pete's sake, which is not far off from "terrorist propaganda".

New Zealand does. There is a clear process and definition for what is classed as objectionable material. That is:

"a publication...(that) describes, depicts or expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good."

In deciding whether a publication is objectionable, or should instead be given an unrestricted or restricted classification, consideration is given to the extent, degree and manner in which the publication describes, depicts, or deals with:

acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm or acts of significant cruelty
sexual violence or sexual coercion, or violence or coercion in association with sexual conduct
sexual or physical conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature
sexual conduct with or by children, or young persons, or both
physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain
exploits the nudity of children, young persons, or both
degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person
promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism
represents that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993.

Only a small handful of videos and books have ever been classified as objectionable, most notably other propaganda pieces from ISIS and al-Qaeda. This hardly arbitrary. You can also apply to the Department of Internal Affairs for an exemption if you really really want see the video and have a legitimate reason to do so.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:08 pm**

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Khataiy wrote:Stupid he did nothing wrong

Sharing a video of a shooting to people who aren't authorities (ex: police-types) isn't wrong?

Why would it be wrong? The video shows the murderer, its historical and a reminder of what this monster is and what he did should never be forgotten and hidden away, imagine if we hid all of our history we would have nothing to learn from laws like these are stupid and serve no purpose whatsoever aside from creating a bigger beuracy, and acting like there's nothing wrong even though there is, governments like the UK and NZ and China who do this broad censorship are part of the problem, and they believe that by hiding things and shutting people up and upholding their own elitist centric views they are helping everyone, its a classic case of the government saying "We know whats good for you". You know by NZ's laws Erdogan would be in jail as he shared the video too to expose the bastard who did this and show everyone what he is and let history remember him for his brutality, how does that sound to you, sure the intentions might be different but the principle still stands that censorship in this manner serves no purpose but is actually a problem within itself.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:08 pm**

Salus Maior wrote:That doesn't negate the bad they do.

<insert eyeroll emoji here>

They've done nothing worthy of banning and torture.

I don't see any videos of the people in the process of being gassed, nor do I see any positive spin being put on it or it being turned into a meme.

There's a shit ton of memes about the holocaust, using actual holocaust footage, usually with "Hitler did nothing wrong" as the theme.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:11 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:That doesn't negate the bad they do.

<insert eyeroll emoji here>

They've done nothing worthy of banning and torture.

I don't see any videos of the people in the process of being gassed, nor do I see any positive spin being put on it or it being turned into a meme.

There's a shit ton of memes about the holocaust, using actual holocaust footage, usually with "Hitler did nothing wrong" as the theme.

Not letting them spread their religion is not torture.

And I think it's fair to ban such content.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:11 pm**

Turbofolkia wrote:
Galloism wrote:Governments don't have a particularly good track record of classifying stuff within reasonable limits.

Let's keep in mind Russia banned The Watchtower as "extremist literature" for pete's sake, which is not far off from "terrorist propaganda".

New Zealand does. There is a clear process and definition for what is classed as objectionable material. That is:

"a publication...(that) describes, depicts or expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good."

In deciding whether a publication is objectionable, or should instead be given an unrestricted or restricted classification, consideration is given to the extent, degree and manner in which the publication describes, depicts, or deals with:

acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm or acts of significant cruelty
sexual violence or sexual coercion, or violence or coercion in association with sexual conduct
sexual or physical conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature
sexual conduct with or by children, or young persons, or both
physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain
exploits the nudity of children, young persons, or both
degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person
promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism
represents that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993.

Only a small handful of videos and books have ever been classified as objectionable, most notably other propaganda pieces from ISIS and al-Qaeda. This hardly arbitrary. You can also apply to the Department of Internal Affairs for an exemption if you really really want see the video and have a legitimate reason to do so.

Jeez, that's a really broad classification. What does New Zealand have against BDSM?

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:13 pm**

Salus Maior wrote:
Galloism wrote:
<insert eyeroll emoji here>

They've done nothing worthy of banning and torture.

There's a shit ton of memes about the holocaust, using actual holocaust footage, usually with "Hitler did nothing wrong" as the theme.

Not letting them spread their religion is not torture.

But torture is.

And I think it's fair to ban such content.

Then you don't really have a commitment to freedom. Which I find unfortunate. You should want to be free.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:14 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Turbofolkia wrote:New Zealand does. There is a clear process and definition for what is classed as objectionable material. That is:

Only a small handful of videos and books have ever been classified as objectionable, most notably other propaganda pieces from ISIS and al-Qaeda. This hardly arbitrary. You can also apply to the Department of Internal Affairs for an exemption if you really really want see the video and have a legitimate reason to do so.

Jeez, that's a really broad classification. What does New Zealand have against BDSM?

Hardly. In New Zealand you technically can consent to assault, to the extent that the assault does not constitute grievous bodily harm, so BDSM is fine and is not objectionable material. Not the topic of this thread anyway.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:14 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:That doesn't negate the bad they do.

<insert eyeroll emoji here>

They've done nothing worthy of banning and torture.

I don't see any videos of the people in the process of being gassed, nor do I see any positive spin being put on it or it being turned into a meme.

There's a shit ton of memes about the holocaust, using actual holocaust footage, usually with "Hitler did nothing wrong" as the theme.

Jehovah’s Witness have a rampant brainwashing and child abuse problem that makes public schools, the Catholic Church And Evangelical Protestantism combined look downright lovely by comparison.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:16 pm**

Turbofolkia wrote:
Galloism wrote:Jeez, that's a really broad classification. What does New Zealand have against BDSM?

Hardly. In New Zealand you technically can consent to assault, to the extent that the assault does not constitute grievous bodily harm, so BDSM is fine and is not objectionable material. Not the topic of this thread anyway.

From your post:

sexual or physical conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature

...

physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:16 pm**

Kowani wrote:Jehovah’s Witness have a rampant brainwashing and child abuse problem that makes public schools, the Catholic Church And Evangelical Protestantism combined look downright lovely by comparison.

Lol.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:19 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:
Not letting them spread their religion is not torture.

But torture is.

And I think it's fair to ban such content.

Then you don't really have a commitment to freedom. Which I find unfortunate. You should want to be free.

So we're moving the goalposts from a discussion about whether or not banning certain content is acceptable to whether or not torture is acceptable? Is that what we're doing?

Anyway, no, I don't believe that the government should have the power to torture citizens.

Freedom doesn't mean anything. There's always restrictions (unless you've decided to become an Anarchist, Gallo), and that restriction in any sane society usually stands at where one's freedom can infringe on someone else's welfare or the welfare of society. And I'm good with that, because that's how a decent and functional society operates.

NationStates

Man charged in relation to sharing Mosque Shooting Video