Man charged in relation to sharing Mosque Shooting Video

[Turbofolkia]

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

Again, difference is that individuals in BDSM videos are consenting to what is happening. To the extent their actions do not constitute grevious bodily harm those videos are not objectionable material. Now, if such videos were non-consensual, or were consensual but a serious level of harm was caused to an individual, then they may be classed as objectionable.

[Galloism]

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.

I'm very dubious on "welfare of society", unless it's really really extreme, obvious, and imminent. "Welfare of society" is used to justify all kinds of authoritarian dystopian stuff, like China's social credit system, or banning movies and literature people don't like to see.

And I'm good with that, because that's how a decent and functional society operates.

A decent society should look out for individual freedoms as much as humanly practical.

[Khataiy]

From your post:

Again, difference is that individuals in BDSM videos are consenting to what is happening. To the extent their actions do not constitute grevious bodily harm those videos are not objectionable material. Now, if such videos were non-consensual, or were consensual but a serious level of harm was caused to an individual, then they may be classed as objectionable.

In a country where free speech is guaranteed this shouldn't even be a discussion unless you are willing to sacrifice your free speech, this may be a character who has some negative connotations or be questionable himself, but an American politician named Huey Long once said Fascism would come in the name of anti-Fascism and this is a manifestation of that quote to criminalize footage of something because it is offensive this is an important part of history and it should be open to the public and available for everyone to see and form their own opinions, otherwise don't bother calling yourself a supporter of free speech or freedom.

[Salus Maior]

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.

I'm very dubious on "welfare of society", unless it's really really extreme, obvious, and imminent. "Welfare of society" is used to justify all kinds of authoritarian dystopian stuff, like China's social credit system, or banning movies and literature people don't like to see.

And I'm good with that, because that's how a decent and functional society operates.

A decent society should look out for individual freedoms as much as humanly practical.

So, acting after/during the terrorist attack when people are already dead and dying, rather than acting to stop the growth of such movements in the first place. I'm sure the victims would really appreciate their individual freedoms then.

I'm a moralist, so I don't agree that individualism is some kind of sacred thing up on the highest pedestal.

[Kowani]

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.

I'm very dubious on "welfare of society", unless it's really really extreme, obvious, and imminent. "Welfare of society" is used to justify all kinds of authoritarian dystopian stuff, like China's social credit system, or banning movies and literature people don't like to see.

And I'm good with that, because that's how a decent and functional society operates.

A decent society should look out for individual freedoms as much as humanly practical.

Why?

[Galloism]

I'm very dubious on "welfare of society", unless it's really really extreme, obvious, and imminent. "Welfare of society" is used to justify all kinds of authoritarian dystopian stuff, like China's social credit system, or banning movies and literature people don't like to see.



A decent society should look out for individual freedoms as much as humanly practical.

So, acting after/during the terrorist attack when people are already dead and dying, rather than acting to stop the growth of such movements in the first place. I'm sure the victims would really appreciate their individual freedoms then.

First, you'd have to prove that sharing a video of a historical event will, within a reasonable margin of error, cause that event to be repeated. Otherwise, you don't know that your actions are actually doing any good even by your own metrics.

Second, you'd have to prove that trying to hide the reality of a historical event from the public is in any way justifiable, even if that's the case.

I'm a moralist, so I don't agree that individualism is some kind of sacred thing up on the highest pedestal.

I'm not sure what you mean by moralist.

[Galloism]

A decent society should look out for individual freedoms as much as humanly practical.

Why?

Because oppression is per se a harm to the individual.

Any sort of law should be weighed on good vs harm, keeping in mind that all laws have a harm attached to them. That doesn't mean there aren't good laws - laws against murder certainly have a freedom cost, for instance, but the good of the law outweighs the freedom cost. Very specifically, keeping it legal allows one person to end all freedom of the other forever.

Every law you make is harming the population, it's just not having it may be even more harm in some circumstances. We should be very circumspect before we just wantonly ban things.

[Turbofolkia]

Again, difference is that individuals in BDSM videos are consenting to what is happening. To the extent their actions do not constitute grevious bodily harm those videos are not objectionable material. Now, if such videos were non-consensual, or were consensual but a serious level of harm was caused to an individual, then they may be classed as objectionable.

In a country where free speech is guaranteed this shouldn't even be a discussion unless you are willing to sacrifice your free speech, this may be a character who has some negative connotations or be questionable himself, but an American politician named Huey Long once said Fascism would come in the name of anti-Fascism and this is a manifestation of that quote to criminalize footage of something because it is offensive this is an important part of history and it should be open to the public and available for everyone to see and form their own opinions, otherwise don't bother calling yourself a supporter of free speech or freedom.

This is not a free speech issue, which doesn't exist in an absolute form in New Zealand anyway. Nobody is clamping down on your right to say that the video should be available for distribution or even your right to say that the shooter was a hero.

You have to understand that New Zealand is a nation of only ~5 million people, so the attacks came as quite a massive shock to the national psyche. To most reasonable people in New Zealand, I'd say the ban is considered fair and appropriate in those circumstances, especially to prevent the spread of recruitment material for potential copycats. In time the video and the manifesto may be reclassified, but not in the immediate aftermath.

[Galloism]

In a country where free speech is guaranteed this shouldn't even be a discussion unless you are willing to sacrifice your free speech, this may be a character who has some negative connotations or be questionable himself, but an American politician named Huey Long once said Fascism would come in the name of anti-Fascism and this is a manifestation of that quote to criminalize footage of something because it is offensive this is an important part of history and it should be open to the public and available for everyone to see and form their own opinions, otherwise don't bother calling yourself a supporter of free speech or freedom.

This is not a free speech issue, which doesn't exist in an absolute form in New Zealand anyway. Nobody is clamping down on your right to think that the video should be available for distribution or even your right to say that the shooter was a hero.

You have to understand that New Zealand is a nation of only ~5 million people, so the attacks came as quite a massive shock to the national psyche. To most reasonable people in New Zealand, I'd say the ban is considered fair and appropriate in those circumstances, especially to prevent the spread of recruitment material for potential copycats. In time the video and the manifesto may be reclassified, but not in the immediate aftermath.

Let's also keep in mind New Zealand is doing other crazy things in the aftermath of that, like banning most semiautomatic firearms.

[Kowani]

Why?

Because oppression is per se a harm to the individual.

Define oppression.

Any sort of law should be weighed on good vs harm, keeping in mind that all laws have a harm attached to them. That doesn't mean there aren't good laws - laws against murder certainly have a freedom cost, for instance, but the good of the law outweighs the freedom cost. Very specifically, keeping it legal allows one person to end all freedom of the other forever.

Ah. You take freedom as an inherent good.

Every law you make is harming the population,

You have a very circuitous definition of “harm.” Getting a flu shot may hurt, but it doesn’t harm.
Laws are like flu shots.

[Khataiy]

In a country where free speech is guaranteed this shouldn't even be a discussion unless you are willing to sacrifice your free speech, this may be a character who has some negative connotations or be questionable himself, but an American politician named Huey Long once said Fascism would come in the name of anti-Fascism and this is a manifestation of that quote to criminalize footage of something because it is offensive this is an important part of history and it should be open to the public and available for everyone to see and form their own opinions, otherwise don't bother calling yourself a supporter of free speech or freedom.

This is not a free speech issue, which doesn't exist in an absolute form in New Zealand anyway. Nobody is clamping down on your right to think that the video should be available for distribution or even your right to say that the shooter was a hero.

You have to understand that New Zealand is a nation of only ~5 million people, so the attacks came as quite a massive shock to the national psyche. To most reasonable people in New Zealand, I'd say the ban is considered fair and appropriate in those circumstances, especially to prevent the spread of recruitment material for potential copycats. In time the video and the manifesto may be reclassified, but not in the immediate aftermath.

If you have weapons and you want to kill someone you don't need a video, Columbine didn't need a video and the people who did other mass shootings didn't either if this were truly the case then you should ban the news from even reporting a shooting happened, its understandable what a shock this could be to a small population, but this has a global reverberation and from the standpoint of a foreigner this comes off as immature of NZ's government to imprison someone for watching or posting a video even if it depicts the worst things imaginable, or reading the manifesto, there is a lot to learn from this and this is how we learn and philosophize and taking away these things and politicizing it is part of the problem.

The shooter in his manifesto said he would hope for a polarization, and this clearly reflects in my opinion something he would support the imprisonment of someone who shared his actions (and we wouldn't know this if the manifesto was forbidden or illegal), it creates the impression the government is targeting people who share/support his "heroic" deeds and further plays into the agenda.

[Salus Maior]

Let's also keep in mind New Zealand is doing other crazy things in the aftermath of that, like banning most semiautomatic firearms.

Just a reminder that this guy picked NZ for the attack because it was so easy to have firearms.

[Galloism]

Because oppression is per se a harm to the individual.

Define oppression.

1a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
unfair taxes and other oppressions

Any sort of law should be weighed on good vs harm, keeping in mind that all laws have a harm attached to them. That doesn't mean there aren't good laws - laws against murder certainly have a freedom cost, for instance, but the good of the law outweighs the freedom cost. Very specifically, keeping it legal allows one person to end all freedom of the other forever.

Ah. You take freedom as an inherent good.

Absolutely. The complete lack of it leads to a life not worth living, and the more of it you have, the better quality of life you have, on average.

Every law you make is harming the population,

You have a very circuitous definition of “harm.” Getting a flu shot may hurt, but it doesn’t harm.
Laws are like flu shots.

Be strapped down and made to take the flu shot is harm though.

That's like saying an abortion isn't harm to the woman. This is true, but forcing one on a woman is harm.

[Galloism]

Let's also keep in mind New Zealand is doing other crazy things in the aftermath of that, like banning most semiautomatic firearms.

Just a reminder that this guy picked NZ for the attack because it was so easy to have firearms.

Strange he didn't come to America.

[Khataiy]

Let's also keep in mind New Zealand is doing other crazy things in the aftermath of that, like banning most semiautomatic firearms.

Just a reminder that this guy picked NZ for the attack because it was so easy to have firearms.

Let's also remember he said he wanted Liberals in America to use this as a way to advance the goal of outlawing fire arms to cause a civil war.

[Salus Maior]

Just a reminder that this guy picked NZ for the attack because it was so easy to have firearms.

Strange he didn't come to America.

He was an Aussie.

[Galloism]

Just a reminder that this guy picked NZ for the attack because it was so easy to have firearms.

Let's also remember he said he wanted Liberals in America to use this as a way to advance the goal of outlawing fire arms to cause a civil war.

Wait, what?

[Salus Maior]

Just a reminder that this guy picked NZ for the attack because it was so easy to have firearms.

Let's also remember he said he wanted Liberals in America to use this as a way to advance the goal of outlawing fire arms to cause a civil war.

Ok?

[Salus Maior]

Let's also remember he said he wanted Liberals in America to use this as a way to advance the goal of outlawing fire arms to cause a civil war.

Wait, what?

Did you ever read his manifesto?

[Khataiy]

Let's also remember he said he wanted Liberals in America to use this as a way to advance the goal of outlawing fire arms to cause a civil war.

Wait, what?

He wrote that in his manifesto he would hope the shooting would bring attention to the firearms debate in America, to the point that the left would outlaw firearms in the US which would eventually lead to a civil war.

[Galloism]

Wait, what?

Did you ever read his manifesto?

Admittedly no. I heard it was banned.

[Khataiy]

Let's also remember he said he wanted Liberals in America to use this as a way to advance the goal of outlawing fire arms to cause a civil war.

Ok?

Putting restrictions on firearms would play into his agenda you are actually doing everything he wants, not that you are one, but the Soviets had a term called a "Useful idiot" who were non-Communists who played into their political goals, and likewise actions like these very easily fall into this category for people like Tarrant.

[Kowani]

Define oppression.

1a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
unfair taxes and other oppressions

And who decides what is an “unjust or cruel exercise of authority?”

Ah. You take freedom as an inherent good.

Absolutely. The complete lack of it leads to a life not worth living, and the more of it you have, the better quality of life you have, on average.

Ignoring the subjective nature of both of those statements, the second one definitely needs a citation.

You have a very circuitous definition of “harm.” Getting a flu shot may hurt, but it doesn’t harm.
Laws are like flu shots.

Be strapped down and made to take the flu shot is harm though.

That's like saying an abortion isn't harm to the woman. This is true, but forcing one on a woman is harm.

Liberty is of no inherent value, mate.

[Galloism]

1a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
unfair taxes and other oppressions

And who decides what is an “unjust or cruel exercise of authority?”

That's where that whole "justification for the law" comes in, where you have to weigh the reduction in freedom against the benefit of the law.

Absolutely. The complete lack of it leads to a life not worth living, and the more of it you have, the better quality of life you have, on average.

Ignoring the subjective nature of both of those statements, the second one definitely needs a citation.

The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, provides an excellent list of factors that can be considered in evaluating quality of life. It includes many things that citizens of the United States and other developed countries take for granted, which are not available in a significant number of other countries around the world. Although this declaration is more than 70 years old, in many ways it still represents an ideal to be achieved, rather than a baseline state of affairs. Factors that may be used to measure the quality of life include the following:

Freedom from slavery and torture
Equal protection of the law
Freedom from discrimination
Freedom of movement
Freedom of residence within one's home country
Presumption of innocence unless proved guilty
Right to marry
Right to have a family
Right to be treated equally without regard to gender, race, language, religion, political beliefs, nationality, socioeconomic status, and more
Right to privacy
Freedom of thought
Freedom of religion
Free choice of employment
Right to fair pay
Equal pay for equal work
Right to vote
Right to rest and leisure
Right to education
Right to human dignity

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/f ... f-life.asp

Be strapped down and made to take the flu shot is harm though.

That's like saying an abortion isn't harm to the woman. This is true, but forcing one on a woman is harm.

Liberty is of no inherent value, mate.

Liberty is possibly the most inherently valuable thing we possess - it is through liberty that all other joys of life can exist and be enjoyed, all goals can be striven for, all pleasures can be enjoyed. Without liberty, we are nothing but slaves.

[Turbofolkia]

Let's also keep in mind New Zealand is doing other crazy things in the aftermath of that, like banning most semiautomatic firearms.

Which is entirely rational and appropriate, not crazy. The only reason the shooter (who was an Australian) didn't stay in Australia and kill Muslims in Australia (where there exists a much larger Muslim population) was because of the stringent gun laws. He probably would have killed half a dozen max with a shotgun or a pistol before being apprehended, and not the 51 he killed in Christchurch.

If you have weapons and you want to kill someone you don't need a video, Columbine didn't need a video and the people who did other mass shootings didn't either if this were truly the case then you should ban the news from even reporting a shooting happened, its understandable what a shock this could be to a small population, but this has a global reverberation and from the standpoint of a foreigner this comes off as immature of NZ's government to imprison someone for watching or posting a video even if it depicts the worst things imaginable, or reading the manifesto, there is a lot to learn from this and this is how we learn and philosophize and taking away these things and politicizing it is part of the problem.

The shooter in his manifesto said he would hope for a polarization, and this clearly reflects in my opinion something he would support the imprisonment of someone who shared his actions (and we wouldn't know this if the manifesto was forbidden or illegal), it creates the impression the government is targeting people who share/support his "heroic" deeds and further plays into the agenda.

Hold on, nobody is being imprisoned for simply watching the video or reading the manifesto. It is the deliberate distribution of the video that will attract a prison sentence, which is what happened to the individual in this case. This is merely enacting a law common to many countries whereby it is illegal to incite others through (written or broadcast) to carry out hatred, crime and violence. There is absolutely nothing to learn from watching 51 people getting slaughtered.