Man charged in relation to sharing Mosque Shooting Video

[Galloism]

Preventing its sharing is a form of censorship and a free speech infringement you yourself even said it should be criminalized to to share the video with the intent of lionizing the shooter or mocking his victims, which would fall under the category of supporting the shooter, sharing/distributing the video isn't necessarily a sign of support, Turkey's president shared the video too out of condemnation for the event which caused outrage from NZ's government demanding he stop which I find equally ridicilious for the same reason and a whole set of other ones including a foreigner telling the leader of a sovereign state what they can and cannot do.

Erdogan shared the video to rile up his nationalist base and to say "This is what all Australians and New Zealanders are like". It was entirely tasteless and inappropriate. I don't think it's ridiculous for the leaders of Australia and New Zealand to call him out when he insults their countries.

Erdogan’s usage was, of course, tasteless and inappropriate. It was also offensive and, most importantly, incorrect.

There’s actually nothing wrong with the leaders of Australia and NZ to call him out on that shit. In fact, they’d be remiss to stay silent.

This is what a marketplace of ideas looks like.

[Turbofolkia]

I question that - given the way browsers work, you have to download it to your browser’s cache, which is on the hard drive, at least temporarily just to watch it.

I'm not aware of any case law where someone has been prosecuted under the Classification Act for merely clicking on a link. Courts are well aware of the distinction between viewing and intentionally downloading something in its ordinary sense. That said, it may be an interesting question to be tried one day, it won't happen in this case though.

Basically, we said we could spy on the entire world (including our own people and New Zealanders) using secret courts to prevent this from happening again:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h3shmfKOZ9g

It had popular support at the time, and was intended to prevent people dying like that again.

You just justified it.

Again, not sure about the relevance of a US law allowing mass surveillance and the use of secret courts and a NZ law simply banning the use of semi-automatic firearms. I made absolutely no comment about that law.

[Galloism]

I question that - given the way browsers work, you have to download it to your browser’s cache, which is on the hard drive, at least temporarily just to watch it.

I'm not aware of any case law where someone has been prosecuted under the Classification Act for merely clicking on a link. Courts are well aware of the distinction between viewing and intentionally downloading something in its ordinary sense. That said, it may be an interesting question to be tried one day, it won't happen in this case though.

Still though, possessing it is illegal. We can quibble on the exact definition of possession, but NZ has taken steps to block sites which host the video, quelling much speech beyond the video, and tried to make foreign sites that have nothing to do with New Zealand take it and the manifesto down (with some hilarious pushback).

They clearly don’t want anyone to even see it, or they wouldn’t take these steps.

Basically, we said we could spy on the entire world (including our own people and New Zealanders) using secret courts to prevent this from happening again:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h3shmfKOZ9g

It had popular support at the time, and was intended to prevent people dying like that again.

You just justified it.

Again, not sure about the relevance of a US law allowing mass surveillance and the use of secret courts and a NZ law simply banning the use of semi-automatic firearms. I made absolutely no comment about that law.

This is the relevance:

Well your new law does put it in line with Australia. You're both rocking roughly equally draconian laws in this regard.

If the laws stop another 50 people from being slaughtered again, and have the support of a majority of the population, then they're appropriate.

Hope you don’t mind Uncle Sam spying on you. Or perhaps you didn’t mean for this maxim to be applied universally.

[Kowani]

Yes, that’s never been abused. Ever.

I mean, debate is what it’s all about isn’t it? That requires us to make value judgements.

r/whoosh.

Yes, we all love pithy Ben Franklin. Oh, wait, no. He’s entirely wrong.
So you say, yet somehow that’s not historically true.

China, Russia, and large chunks of Europe called for you.

Meanwhile, America is sitting in the corner, laughing its ass off.

Serious question. If there’s no inherent value to liberty, why did we ban slavery? After all, there’s no value to being free.

3 words: Subjective Value Judgements.

Cool, so slavery is not inherently bad. It was just a subjective thing.
[/quote] Well, yeah. Welcome to moral nihilism, mate.

I mean, presuming we take your argument as legit, you’re exactly the kind of person we should be working against so we get to keep our freedoms.

No, actually. Freedom is useful (if tempered), because very few non crappy authoritarians last long in power.

[Galloism]

Meanwhile, America is sitting in the corner, laughing its ass off.

Ok, admittedly, our record ain’t so great either. But some of us (perhaps in a futile manner) are trying to fix that.

Cool, so slavery is not inherently bad. It was just a subjective thing.

Well, yeah. Welcome to moral nihilism, mate.

It must suck to live with no dreams.

I mean, presuming we take your argument as legit, you’re exactly the kind of person we should be working against so we get to keep our freedoms.

No, actually. Freedom is useful (if tempered), because very few non crappy authoritarians last long in power.

There’s a factor there too. We can see what has happened with the authoritarian left in Europe - it’s led directly to a rise in the authoritarian right.

This is not good.

I fear New Zealand will find itself on a similar path before long.

[Costa Fierro]

Seems pretty authoritarian.

When you deal with absolute fuckwits like Arp, you do it properly or you don't do it at all.

[Turbofolkia]

Still though, possessing it is illegal. We can quibble on the exact definition of possession, but NZ has taken steps to block sites which host the video, quelling much speech beyond the video, and tried to make foreign sites that have nothing to do with New Zealand take it and the manifesto down (with some hilarious pushback).

They clearly don’t want anyone to even see it, or they wouldn’t take these steps.

Well yeah, I think the Prime Minister even said as much. The banning of sites like 4chan etc was done by a number of private ISPs (not all), which I think was a step too far.

Hope you don’t mind Uncle Sam spying on you. Or perhaps you didn’t mean for this maxim to be applied universally.

Again, I'm not really sure about the relevance of injecting examples from US politics where it doesn't belong. I do not know the ins and outs of that act so I'm not really sure why you seem to think me supporting gun control in NZ is the same as me supporting mass surveillance in the US and elsewhere. Not all laws have the same purpose and effect.

If you want to use your spying example, then keep it contextual. If the NZ government introduced new laws giving spy agencies greater powers in the wake of Christchurch, I would be against it. I don't think they would be as effective in stopping another person from killing 51 people with a semiautomatic as a law preventing the use of that very weapon.

[Costa Fierro]

I personally disagree with the disturbing content laws, however, he knew he'd get in trouble and therefore knowingly broke those laws, so he should be charged in that regard. His previous offending should be a factor, however his personal opinions on Islam shouldn't be, as it's his right to believe what he wants.

Demanding for a "cull" and screaming about white power would generally come across as being more than mere disagreements with Islam.

I'd have given him 12 months maximum if I was the judge. Personally I don't support hate crime laws as I feel they are their own type of institutionalised racism/discrimination, but that's another thread.

Because apparently laws that are rarely used and have a high threshold for what can be considered hate speech are problematic because "wah i can't say hateful things about certain groups of people". Which is somewhat ironic that they only cover ethnicity/race/national origin, everyone else is fair game.

Besides, I see you're an ethno-nationalist so you might want to keep your opinions to yourself in future.

[Galloism]

Still though, possessing it is illegal. We can quibble on the exact definition of possession, but NZ has taken steps to block sites which host the video, quelling much speech beyond the video, and tried to make foreign sites that have nothing to do with New Zealand take it and the manifesto down (with some hilarious pushback).

They clearly don’t want anyone to even see it, or they wouldn’t take these steps.

Well yeah, I think the Prime Minister even said as much. The banning of sites like 4chan etc was done by a number of private ISPs (not all), which I think was a step too far.

And your police force is trying to intimidate foreign corporations.

Hope you don’t mind Uncle Sam spying on you. Or perhaps you didn’t mean for this maxim to be applied universally.

Again, I'm not really sure about the relevance of injecting examples from US politics where it doesn't belong. I do not know the ins and outs of that act so I'm not really sure why you seem to think me supporting gun control in NZ is the same as me supporting mass surveillance in the US and elsewhere. Not all laws have the same purpose and effect.

If you want to use your spying example, then keep it contextual. If the NZ government introduced new laws giving spy agencies greater powers in the wake of Christchurch, I would be against it. I don't think they would be as effective in stopping another person from killing 51 people with a semiautomatic as a law preventing the use of that very weapon.

To be honest, the spying is more likely to prevent it than a scary looking weapons ban, and it’s certainly a hell of a lot more likely than censorship of a document or video. Hell, saying “world, please don’t shoot up the place again, sincerely, New Zealand” would do more to prevent another shooting than censorship would.

[Kowani]

Meanwhile, America is sitting in the corner, laughing its ass off.

Ok, admittedly, our record ain’t so great either. But some of us (perhaps in a futile manner) are trying to fix that.

Fair.

Well, yeah. Welcome to moral nihilism, mate.

It must suck to live with no dreams.

1: Moral, not existential.
2: My personal flavor of existential nihilism allows space for dreams.

No, actually. Freedom is useful (if tempered), because very few non crappy authoritarians last long in power.

There’s a factor there too. We can see what has happened with the authoritarian left in Europe - it’s led directly to a rise in the authoritarian right.

This is not good.

I fear New Zealand will find itself on a similar path before long.

You know what lead to a rise in the Authoritarian Right in Europe? The Authoritarian Left failing to take care of their people’s physical needs. (Or at least make people think that they were.) If stomachs are full, most people are unlikely to rebel, regardless of how much freedom they have. To quote 8-Bit Theatre: It is much harder to overthrow a king who is loved than one who is hated. New Zealand is not in danger of economic collapse, massive crime waves or anything of the sort.

[Turbofolkia]

And your police force is trying to intimidate foreign corporations.

Source: oneangrygamer.net

okay

To be honest, the spying is more likely to prevent it than a scary looking weapons ban, and it’s certainly a hell of a lot more likely than censorship of a document or video. Hell, saying “world, please don’t shoot up the place again, sincerely, New Zealand” would do more to prevent another shooting than censorship would.

Not necessarily, the shooter was by all accounts a loner who didn't really get up to much online other than seemingly harmless trolling. He would have not grabbed the attention of any spy authority, and he didn't.

Like I said before, the only reason the shooter, an Australian, didn't stay in Australia, a country with many more Muslims, was because he would have never gotten his hands on the same weapons he could in NZ.

[Galloism]

And your police force is trying to intimidate foreign corporations.

Source: oneangrygamer.net

okay

It’s reliable.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... olice.html

To be honest, the spying is more likely to prevent it than a scary looking weapons ban, and it’s certainly a hell of a lot more likely than censorship of a document or video. Hell, saying “world, please don’t shoot up the place again, sincerely, New Zealand” would do more to prevent another shooting than censorship would.

Not necessarily, the shooter was by all accounts a loner who didn't really get up to much online other than seemingly harmless trolling. He would have not grabbed the attention of any spy authority, and he didn't.

Like I said before, the only reason the shooter, an Australian, didn't stay in Australia, a country with many more Muslims, was because he would have never gotten his hands on the same weapons he could in NZ.

And you’re apparently playing right into his hands and doing exactly what he wanted.

Good job supporting terrorists, New Zealand.

[Galloism]

You know what lead to a rise in the Authoritarian Right in Europe? The Authoritarian Left failing to take care of their people’s physical needs. (Or at least make people think that they were.) If stomachs are full, most people are unlikely to rebel, regardless of how much freedom they have. To quote 8-Bit Theatre: It is much harder to overthrow a king who is loved than one who is hated. New Zealand is not in danger of economic collapse, massive crime waves or anything of the sort.

Which goes back to your previous statement regarding authoritarians generally sucking after a few years.

[Turbofolkia]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... olice.html

Either way, politely asking for IP addresses (something that police forces all over the world do all the time) is hardly "intimidation".

And you’re apparently playing right into his hands and doing exactly what he wanted.

Good job supporting terrorists, New Zealand

He wants to start a race war and expel all Muslims from white-lands. I'm not sure how banning semi automatics in NZ is doing "exactly what he wanted" or gets us even a tiny bit closer to that, but anyway.

[Khataiy]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... olice.html

Either way, politely asking for IP addresses (something that police forces all over the world do all the time) is hardly "intimidation".

And you’re apparently playing right into his hands and doing exactly what he wanted.

Good job supporting terrorists, New Zealand

He wants to start a race war and expel all Muslims from white-lands. I'm not sure how banning semi automatics in NZ is doing "exactly what he wanted" or gets us even a tiny bit closer to that, but anyway.

Read his manifesto

[Galloism]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... olice.html

Either way, politely asking for IP addresses (something that police forces all over the world do all the time) is hardly "intimidation".

They stated he’d be subject to prosecution if he spoke out about being contacted by the police.

And you’re apparently playing right into his hands and doing exactly what he wanted.

Good job supporting terrorists, New Zealand

He wants to start a race war and expel all Muslims from white-lands. I'm not sure how banning semi automatics in NZ is doing "exactly what he wanted" or gets us even a tiny bit closer to that, but anyway.

Well, someone earlier said it was part of his manifesto.

You wouldn’t know one way or the other though, because your government thinks it’s too dangerous for you to be allowed to read.

[Drongonia]

Besides, I see you're an ethno-nationalist so you might want to keep your opinions to yourself in future.

I love this comment, it's a kind way of saying "I see you have differing set of political beliefs to mine and I don't like it, so shut up."

[Turbofolkia]

They stated he’d be subject to prosecution if he spoke out about being contacted by the police.

Which makes me convinced this is a hoax because a) there is no law preventing someone from speaking out after being contacted by police, b) even if there was, this guy is an American and NZ law has no inherent jurisdiction over individuals overseas, and police are well aware of that. This is basic stuff.

Well, someone earlier said it was part of his manifesto.

You wouldn’t know one way or the other though, because your government thinks it’s too dangerous for you to be allowed to read.

Read his manifesto

He could have said "I hope people reject me" in his manifesto, which is irrelevant since basing your actions based on what he would have wanted is silly. If he thought that gun control was going to lead to increased strife in NZ then he's dead wrong. The law was supported by a cross-section of society, including many gun owners, and only one MP voted against the bill. If strife arising out of gun control was "exactly what he wanted", then he failed.

[Khataiy]

They stated he’d be subject to prosecution if he spoke out about being contacted by the police.

Which makes me convinced this is a hoax because a) there is no law preventing someone from speaking out after being contacted by police, b) even if there was, this guy is an American and NZ law has no inherent jurisdiction over individuals overseas, and police are well aware of that. This is basic stuff.

Well, someone earlier said it was part of his manifesto.

You wouldn’t know one way or the other though, because your government thinks it’s too dangerous for you to be allowed to read.

Read his manifesto

He could have said "I hope people reject me" in his manifesto, which is irrelevant since basing your actions based on what he would have wanted is silly. If he thought that gun control was going to lead to increased strife in NZ then he's dead wrong. The law was supported by a cross-section of society, including many gun owners, and only one MP voted against the bill. If strife arising out of gun control was "exactly what he wanted", then he failed.

He actually thought it would lead to increased strife in the US.

[Turbofolkia]

Which makes me convinced this is a hoax because a) there is no law preventing someone from speaking out after being contacted by police, b) even if there was, this guy is an American and NZ law has no inherent jurisdiction over individuals overseas, and police are well aware of that. This is basic stuff.



He could have said "I hope people reject me" in his manifesto, which is irrelevant since basing your actions based on what he would have wanted is silly. If he thought that gun control was going to lead to increased strife in NZ then he's dead wrong. The law was supported by a cross-section of society, including many gun owners, and only one MP voted against the bill. If strife arising out of gun control was "exactly what he wanted", then he failed.

He actually thought it would lead to increased strife in the US.

Well it's incredibly moronic (for him and anybody else) to think that law reform in New Zealand is going to have any effect, positive or negative, in the US. So again, I'm not exactly sure how NZ changing its gun laws helps to achieve his desire of stirring the pot in the US.

[Loben The 2nd]

Which makes me convinced this is a hoax because a) there is no law preventing someone from speaking out after being contacted by police, b) even if there was, this guy is an American and NZ law has no inherent jurisdiction over individuals overseas, and police are well aware of that. This is basic stuff.



He could have said "I hope people reject me" in his manifesto, which is irrelevant since basing your actions based on what he would have wanted is silly. If he thought that gun control was going to lead to increased strife in NZ then he's dead wrong. The law was supported by a cross-section of society, including many gun owners, and only one MP voted against the bill. If strife arising out of gun control was "exactly what he wanted", then he failed.

He actually thought it would lead to increased strife in the US.

Also guilted people into signing their rights away under the veneer of safety, a coup for the closeted authoritarians of the west.

[Drongonia]

They stated he’d be subject to prosecution if he spoke out about being contacted by the police.

Which makes me convinced this is a hoax because a) there is no law preventing someone from speaking out after being contacted by police, b) even if there was, this guy is an American and NZ law has no inherent jurisdiction over individuals overseas, and police are well aware of that. This is basic stuff.

Well, someone earlier said it was part of his manifesto.

You wouldn’t know one way or the other though, because your government thinks it’s too dangerous for you to be allowed to read.

Read his manifesto

He could have said "I hope people reject me" in his manifesto, which is irrelevant since basing your actions based on what he would have wanted is silly. If he thought that gun control was going to lead to increased strife in NZ then he's dead wrong. The law was supported by a cross-section of society, including many gun owners, and only one MP voted against the bill. If strife arising out of gun control was "exactly what he wanted", then he failed.

Strife is subjective. I have a lot of inside knowledge of what's going on inside National and people are pissed. ACT who is that one MP you mentioned, will grow. That's why National sent MPs Chris Bishop and I think Nicola Willis? (Don't quote me on that) to host community forums on gun reforms and almost every single one ended with them being heckled and lambasted for not asking for the public's opinion first or even trying to get an exemption for sports shooters.

They're in bloody strife alright. Because New Zealand is a sensible and civil democracy, the strife will manifest itself as more and more right-wing political parties and organisations forming. New NZ Party, New Conservative, 1NZ Party, and the potential rise of ACT just to name a few.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They stated he’d be subject to prosecution if he spoke out about being contacted by the police.

Which makes me convinced this is a hoax because a) there is no law preventing someone from speaking out after being contacted by police, b) even if there was, this guy is an American and NZ law has no inherent jurisdiction over individuals overseas, and police are well aware of that. This is basic stuff.

Well, someone earlier said it was part of his manifesto.

You wouldn’t know one way or the other though, because your government thinks it’s too dangerous for you to be allowed to read.

Read his manifesto

He could have said "I hope people reject me" in his manifesto, which is irrelevant since basing your actions based on what he would have wanted is silly. If he thought that gun control was going to lead to increased strife in NZ then he's dead wrong. The law was supported by a cross-section of society, including many gun owners, and only one MP voted against the bill. If strife arising out of gun control was "exactly what he wanted", then he failed.

It's not supposed to lead to strife in New Zealand, he wanted the Democrats to further adopt gun control and become even more bold after NZ inevitably banned tons of things to further inflame the situation in the US. The goal he's hoping for is for the Dems and the left to push so hard on so many things that it destroys mainstream conservatism and pushes Republicans to the extreme and starts a civil war eventually.

[Galloism]

They stated he’d be subject to prosecution if he spoke out about being contacted by the police.

Which makes me convinced this is a hoax because a) there is no law preventing someone from speaking out after being contacted by police, b) even if there was, this guy is an American and NZ law has no inherent jurisdiction over individuals overseas, and police are well aware of that. This is basic stuff.

Your police confirmed the communication was genuine. They reported on it including the confirmation.

Well, someone earlier said it was part of his manifesto.

You wouldn’t know one way or the other though, because your government thinks it’s too dangerous for you to be allowed to read.

Read his manifesto

He could have said "I hope people reject me" in his manifesto, which is irrelevant since basing your actions based on what he would have wanted is silly. If he thought that gun control was going to lead to increased strife in NZ then he's dead wrong. The law was supported by a cross-section of society, including many gun owners, and only one MP voted against the bill. If strife arising out of gun control was "exactly what he wanted", then he failed.

Then why did your voluntary gun surrender only net ~500 guns out of the half a million guns estimated to be in private hands?

And keep in mind - your government now says it’s too dangerous for you to be allowed to read things. Think about that really hard.

[Khataiy]

He actually thought it would lead to increased strife in the US.

Well it's incredibly moronic (for him and anybody else) to think that law reform in New Zealand is going to have any effect, positive or negative, in the US. So again, I'm not exactly sure how NZ changing its gun laws helps to achieve his desire of stirring the pot in the US.

It would be a source of inspiration of US law makers who are paranoid of more mass shootings, as there has been a trend of support for gun control in the US since Columbine and every time a shooting happens the discussion comes up this would be no different.