Man charged in relation to sharing Mosque Shooting Video

[Proctopeo]

I mean, right back at ya buddy, but I know my expectations are unrealistic here.

Be thankful I gave your opinion a modicum of respect because you actually wanted to have a discussion as opposed to shitposting.

There's a clear, solid difference between "expressing opinions you don't want to hear" and "shitposting". The majority of people you've been giving no respect to have been doing the former, not the latter.

[Costa Fierro]

Be thankful I gave your opinion a modicum of respect because you actually wanted to have a discussion as opposed to shitposting.

There's a clear, solid difference between "expressing opinions you don't want to hear" and "shitposting". The majority of people you've been giving no respect to have been doing the former, not the latter.

I give no respect to them because they were doing the latter.

[Forsher]

Be thankful I gave your opinion a modicum of respect because you actually wanted to have a discussion as opposed to shitposting.

There's a difference between thinking New Zealand is uncomfortably Orwellian, and shitposting.

You need to re-read 1984.

Pay close attention to the necessity of the two minutes hate to the totalitarian society so depicted. Now, contrast a system which has done everything it possibly can to remove the entity that would be the target of said hate...

Of course, if what you mean is that NZ is a surveillance state... then this is also true of the other core Anglosphere nations. The difference is that, in those countries, you can claim the two minutes hate concept makes sense.

You can't convince me New Zealand is a free country...

You can't convince me the US has a good (and in some cases it's the lower bar of functional) legislature, executive, judiciary or the rule of law. And I'm not seizing one specific fact and ignoring every else when I make those arguments.

Hmm... see how useful this kind of posting is?

Be thankful I gave your opinion a modicum of respect because you actually wanted to have a discussion as opposed to shitposting.

There's a clear, solid difference between "expressing opinions you don't want to hear" and "shitposting". The majority of people you've been giving no respect to have been doing the former, not the latter.

If you're going to kill the conversation in the thread to hold a meta conversation, at least have the decency to make good contributions to the meta conversation. Show and demonstrate how Costa does this and why his characterisation is wrong.

The same goes for Costa too, of course, but in this case his refusal to properly participate in the conversation is kind of a good thing since, you know, theoretically it shuts down the meta conversation rather than shutting down the substantive one.

[Ors Might]

There's a clear, solid difference between "expressing opinions you don't want to hear" and "shitposting". The majority of people you've been giving no respect to have been doing the former, not the latter.

I give no respect to them because they were doing the latter.

Yes yes, all the meanies criticizing your country were just shit posting. Even when we gave actual reasons why we disliked this law and you responded by being as assholish as you could, refusing to engage.

[The Great Swedish Empire]

While I do agree that sharing such a video and even asking for a kill counter being edited in is disgusting I still believe that charging him with prison is the wrong course of action. This sets a rather dangerous precedent. If such a law is enforced how far could it extend?

[Forsher]

While I do agree that sharing such a video and even asking for a kill counter being edited in is disgusting I still believe that charging him with prison is the wrong course of action. This sets a rather dangerous precedent. If such a law is enforced how far could it extend?

Good question, why haven't you answered it?

[Communist Zombie Horde]

If it's disturbing they can delete it and be done. No need to jail.

[Forsher]

If it's disturbing they can delete it and be done. No need to jail.

Yes, and that robber who stole your TV can always bring it back.

[Proctopeo]

There's a clear, solid difference between "expressing opinions you don't want to hear" and "shitposting". The majority of people you've been giving no respect to have been doing the former, not the latter.

I give no respect to them because they were doing the latter.

I mean, that's objectively untrue, but you're dead set on believing it, so there's no point in trying to convince you, or any point in anyone trying to discuss this topic with you whatsoever, for that matter.

[Ors Might]

If it's disturbing they can delete it and be done. No need to jail.

Yes, and that robber who stole your TV can always bring it back.

I think there’s a bit of a difference in both scale and principle here.

[Cappuccina]

While I do agree that sharing such a video and even asking for a kill counter being edited in is disgusting I still believe that charging him with prison is the wrong course of action. This sets a rather dangerous precedent. If such a law is enforced how far could it extend?

I'm of the same mindset, offending people, even in such a grotesque manner, isn't illegal and censorship shouldn't be implemented.

[Forsher]

Yes, and that robber who stole your TV can always bring it back.

I think there’s a bit of a difference in both scale and principle here.

Theirs is a very lazy argument that leaves all the work up to the reader. The implicit logic seems to be that the harm is negligible because "lol, delete it" and potentially even non-existent because "lol, delete it".

Your statement isn't this bad but I dispute it. To either of those points it's quite reasonable to point out that the ability to undo the harm isn't really a relevant consideration. With the former it's not clear, at all, what you mean by scale: which do you understand to be the bigger problem? So, in this limited sense, your post could also be more explicit.

For example, a lot of people wouldn't necessarily see any particular harm with, say, livestreaming the Holocaust. No, wait, they probably would. After all, people objected to Logan Paul's filming a dead body in Japan. Many people who object to this "censorship" would, in principle, probably say they're okay with live-streaming the Holocaust but I'd really have to wonder why... and I would definitely try to investigate anyone who did watch a livestream of the Holocaust.

If an argument doesn't work at its extreme, then there's an issue to ask about whether the argument is good at all... this is usually manifest by trying to say the extreme case has changed the situation to move beyond the argument's parameters. I don't see how that could be the case.

Reporting on suicides in NZ is quite restricted. We have a few train delays a year here in Auckland because of "fatalities" and I strongly suspect these are mostly suicides but when you can say a death was a suicide is controlled. The rationale, or so I've been told and I don't care enough to confirm, is to stop people getting the idea. But the thing with suicide is that it's effectively a personal decision... although anyone who forces someone else to kill them by, say, jumping in front of a train is a prick (and were they, miraculously, to survive should be punished appropriately)... so it's one thing to say, "Well, we're worried about contagious suicides" and quite another to say "We're worried about contagious mass shootings". So long as we believe autonomy is valuable, then it's easy to draw a distinction between Logan Paul and the Christchurch shooting video.

(I think, technically, I have offered an external argument that justifies a desired conclusion which isn't really what I set out to do, but it's the best I can do. You see I was meant to be finding a clear internal distinction which has meaning.)

Here's the thing... I really do not think the way we report suicides here helps. In fact, I think greater transparency would probably help more people than those it gives the idea of suicide to. And to the extent more transparent ("freer") reporting of suicides did increase suicide rates (and I'm not convinced there would be) we have to remember that the "harm to self" narrative means the cost of the canonical suicide is borne mostly by the "victim". The extra suicides would be cause to feel sad rather than, say, sorry.

So... mass shootings. Does transparent reporting help the US? Nope. Does it increase the number? Very possibly.

Hence why should a mass shooting video be legal?

[Farnhamia]

There's a clear, solid difference between "expressing opinions you don't want to hear" and "shitposting". The majority of people you've been giving no respect to have been doing the former, not the latter.

I give no respect to them because they were doing the latter.

You might have had a point about Aclion's posts but you forfeited any high ground you might have had by telling him he was shitting everywhere. A little civility is all we ask. And, before you say it, "He started it" doesn't cut it.

*** Warned for flamebaiting ***

[Costa Fierro]

I give no respect to them because they were doing the latter.

Yes yes, all the meanies criticizing your country were just shit posting. Even when we gave actual reasons why we disliked this law and you responded by being as assholish as you could, refusing to engage.

So I should simply blindly agree with those that think that jailing a Neo-Nazi is wrong?

I mean, that's objectively untrue, but you're dead set on believing it, so there's no point in trying to convince you, or any point in anyone trying to discuss this topic with you whatsoever, for that matter.

You can claim that all you want, it doesn't make it so.

[Proctopeo]

I mean, that's objectively untrue, but you're dead set on believing it, so there's no point in trying to convince you, or any point in anyone trying to discuss this topic with you whatsoever, for that matter.

You can claim that all you want, it doesn't make it so.

Case in point, you're dead set on believing your self-serving view of reality.

[Costa Fierro]

While I do agree that sharing such a video and even asking for a kill counter being edited in is disgusting I still believe that charging him with prison is the wrong course of action. This sets a rather dangerous precedent. If such a law is enforced how far could it extend?

The slippery slope fallacy really doesn't cut it given that this is probably the first time someone has been jailed for violations relating to the distribution of banned media. It's newsworthy because it hasn't happened before, and there has to be a serious reason for doing so. Furthermore the Chief Censor acts in an impartial and non-partisan manner, so it cannot be abused for political purposes.

Simply sharing or possessing the video isn't going to land you in prison. At most you'll get a fine. The reason why this individual was in prison was because of prior offending, and judges will take into account prior circumstances when sentencing. People who have no criminal record will not receive harsh sentences for things like this. Those who have criminal records will.

I'm of the same mindset, offending people, even in such a grotesque manner, isn't illegal and censorship shouldn't be implemented.

Then you are unaware of New Zealand law if you think offending people in manners in which meet certain criteria isn't illegal. There are public disturbance laws and hate speech laws, which only cover certain speech against race, ethnicity, and national origin.

[Galloism]

While I do agree that sharing such a video and even asking for a kill counter being edited in is disgusting I still believe that charging him with prison is the wrong course of action. This sets a rather dangerous precedent. If such a law is enforced how far could it extend?

The slippery slope fallacy really doesn't cut it given that this is probably the first time someone has been jailed for violations relating to the distribution of banned media.

...

Simply sharing or possessing the video isn't going to land you in prison.

As we’ve seen, these are lies. There’s at least 8 that we know of linked in this thread.

[Costa Fierro]

You can claim that all you want, it doesn't make it so.

Case in point, you're dead set on believing your self-serving view of reality.

If it was self-serving then it'd be denying every criticism about New Zealand. But because the subject is in the context of law and on a subjective topic, and therefore claims of inherent objectivity go out the window, because any argument for and against will be inherently driven by subjective beliefs. An appeal to inherent objectivity, especially about the criticisms of the law that exist, cannot be made.

[No State Here]

Authoritarianism at its finest

[Proctopeo]

Case in point, you're dead set on believing your self-serving view of reality.

If it was self-serving then it'd be denying every criticism about New Zealand. But because the subject is in the context of law and on a subjective topic, and therefore claims of inherent objectivity go out the window, because any argument for and against will be inherently driven by subjective beliefs. An appeal to inherent objectivity, especially about the criticisms of the law that exist, cannot be made.

I don't know, I see being able to reject every criticism of this action or the laws that permitted it as "shitposting" as being very self-serving.

[Costa Fierro]

As we’ve seen, these are lies.

These aren't lies. This person is the only one who has been sentenced and imprisoned.

There’s at least 8 that we know of linked in this thread.

There have been eight that have been arrested, only one of which has been sentenced to imprisonment.

[Costa Fierro]

I don't know, I see being able to reject every criticism of this action or the laws that permitted it as "shitposting" as being very self-serving.

And as you can see above, I am unable to do so anymore.

[Galloism]

As we’ve seen, these are lies.

These aren't lies. This person is the only one who has been sentenced and imprisoned.

There’s at least 8 that we know of linked in this thread.

There have been eight that have been arrested, only one of which has been sentenced to imprisonment.

Put that goalpost back.

The slippery slope fallacy really doesn't cut it given that this is probably the first time someone has been jailed for violations relating to the distribution of banned media.

...

Simply sharing or possessing the video isn't going to land you in prison.

What do you do with people arrested and awaiting trial if not jailed or put in prison? Week at the spa? Hang out on the beach? Clean up garbage at the park?

And the guy who pled guilty, what did he get?

[Proctopeo]

I don't know, I see being able to reject every criticism of this action or the laws that permitted it as "shitposting" as being very self-serving.

And as you can see above, I am unable to do so anymore.

I doubt that.

[Costa Fierro]

Put that goalpost back.

Don't make claims that are untrue.

What do you do with people arrested and awaiting trial if not jailed or put in prison? Week at the spa? Hang out on the beach? Clean up garbage at the park?

Depends on whether or not they get bail. Most of them have, only one was refused.

And the guy who pled guilty, what did he get?

21 months imprisonment after sentencing.