Man charged in relation to sharing Mosque Shooting Video

[Costa Fierro]

I actually didn’t.

You are. More than one person is taking exception to what you're attempting to do here. Either we're both wrong, or we're using two different definitions, in which case the definition relevant to the legal context of the discussion would have to be used.

Perhaps more to the point, a person held in prison pending trial has the same lived experience as person held post sentencing. Saying “well, some of the prisoners in Gitmo haven’t been sentenced yet, so they’re not in prison/jailed” doesn’t make their lives any better than those who have.

Except you're assuming that those held before trial are held with the general population or even in actual prisons. Most of the time they are not, only if they are remanded in custody, and even then they are still kept separately. Furthermore I don't appreciate the equation you're making between Guantanamo Bay and the New Zealand prison system.

The crown can also request it from the court.

This would probably fill you in on what the term "the Crown" means in this particular context. It's still not influenced by politics or partisan ideals, as prosecutions are made by the Crown for all prosecutions in the High Court and trial by juries in the District Court.

In other words it's not political, as these are all civil servants, and in this context these lawyers represent the "broader" government including the judiciary and executive. It's fairly unusual even for Anglophone nations, but it's not something that could be abused for political or partisan reasons.

I get it, but no one said they assented, which concerns me - particularly for the fisherman arrested who asserted his constitutional rights.

I think you're applying American legal definitions and thinking into a legal context where they cannot be done. New Zealand doesn't have a formally codified written constitution but does have Acts of Parliament that qualify as legally binding codes that grant people rights. In this instance it would be the Bill of Rights Act 1990, which is mentioned in the article you linked. Section 14 of the Act guarantees New Zealanders "the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." Presumably this is the section that the defendant will use

So we either have two already or will imminently.

Judging by the lack of any media articles covering a trial, I would assume the latter, as media are allowed to report on sentencing and the details of the sentence but likely not the person being sentence (if name suppression isn't lifted). If there is no media coverage covering the sentencing, then that person has not been sentenced.

I hope only for a very short time while charges are laid. IE, 24 or 48 hours.

I'm not sure of a specific time is mandated, but the general rule of procedure is usually 24 hours between being arrested and being in court to be charged.

[Forsher]

Let's try this again.

PEDANTIC.

I appreciate your support with your New Zealand dictionary.

You're completely failing to understand what you're disagreeing with.

See this word pedantic? Look at what it means:

Excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous.

You want me to show you a dictionary entry whereas I am specifically telling you that obsessing about the details of the entries isn't going to get you anywhere. No-one is denying that "jailed" has, technically, a broader meaning. If I was denying this then on what basis would the term "pedantic" be justified? None. So why on Earth am I saying it so much? Engage brain.

What is being disputed was whether or not it was appropriate to read "jailed" in the broad/pedantic/possibly American sense. It was not. You have been shown a non-American dictionary where literally none of the examples clearly show the broad meaning. In fact, it's a bit weird... you'd expect a dictionary to use a definition that matches the usage examples it is itself providing. At the same time, these examples clearly demonstrate that Costa is far from unique in using a narrower definition.

Remember what you're trying to demonstrate... if jailed cannot have the connotation/narrower/possibly non-American meaning then Costa shifted the goalposts. The problem is that this is clearly not the case.

Also, more meaty perhaps, the experience of a person being imprisoned in a particular prison or being jailed in a particular jail isn't really different based on whether they're being held pending trial or being held post sentencing.

Go meatier:

It could be, of course, fair to point out that the goalposts Costa used aren't really germane to the point he was trying to establish, but that's not what any of you tried to do.

That is, look at what Costa disputed:

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?

Costa's approach is to label this the slippery slope fallacy with the idea being that because, in practice, the slope has not happened the argument does not apply. Costa's standard for "has not happened" is "too few people have been sentenced to jail". Well, okay, is that reasonable?

I think it's fairer to say TGSE here is making a more general complaint about the reach of powers. In this context, arrests alone would be a better representation of the slope rather than sentences or, indeed, mere detention.

It is obviously rather different to be in jail serving a term of however long and to be in the same identical cell waiting for a court date to decide your guilt. It's the difference between hell and purgatory. I don't think the actual detention (and by extension its location) is relevant at all to the problem.

Of course, once you realise we're talking about "precedents" this whole extended conversation about whether we're talking about "mere detention" or "prison sentences" when we see Costa write "jailed" becomes all the more absurd. You cannot get precedents without sentences (well, court rulings) guys...

[Ors Might]

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?

Here’s my problem here. The harm caused by your example “live-streaming the Holocaust” isn’t something that could be measured even if it did happen. That isn’t to say that the harm caused is zero but by it’s very nature it’d be difficult, if not flat out impossible, to see if it outweighs the harm caused by banning viewing, owning, and sharing that hypothetical footage. Even if one thinks one shouldn’t do something, that does not equate to them wanting it to be ilegal to do the thing. Laws by their nature cause some level of harm. But I will admit your having a point here. Harm that is subjective is still puniahed, hence why returning a stolen tv doesn’t make alls wwll. But the harm caused by punishing thievery is outweighed by theft, so I do not entirely concede the point.

As to this case specifically, we have to look at the law in question. To summarize it makes ownership and sharing footage of a shooting illegal. We have to question what harm is caused by ownership. Now, there is precedent for banning possession of materials but in those cases it is typically only if the liklihood if anyone causing harm with those materials is greater than the odds of them not doing so. Owning footage of a shooting does not, in my book, meet that criteria. Sharing the material could be argued to be harmful, psychologically speaking. To be honest, I don’t entirely buy that. Whike psychological damage should not be ignored entirely, we should acknowledge that it isn’t indiscriminate. Similar to how some children will be traumatized by horror movies while other children are capable of handling it, it’s simply difficult to evaluate one way or another how much harm could be caused by sharinf this.

Beyond all that though, what tics me off most about how New Zealand has handled this isn’t this law, although it does anger me. What I find most egregious is their general attitude towards this in a more broad sense. Instead of looking into and fighting the root causes of terrorist attacks, they instead go no further than the surface level and expect everything to be peachy in the long term.

[Forsher]

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?

Here’s my problem here. The harm caused by your example “live-streaming the Holocaust” isn’t something that could be measured even if it did happen. That isn’t to say that the harm caused is zero but by it’s very nature it’d be difficult, if not flat out impossible, to see if it outweighs the harm caused by banning viewing, owning, and sharing that hypothetical footage. Even if one thinks one shouldn’t do something, that does not equate to them wanting it to be ilegal to do the thing. Laws by their nature cause some level of harm. But I will admit your having a point here. Harm that is subjective is still puniahed, hence why returning a stolen tv doesn’t make alls wwll. But the harm caused by punishing thievery is outweighed by theft, so I do not entirely concede the point.

As to this case specifically, we have to look at the law in question. To summarize it makes ownership and sharing footage of a shooting illegal. We have to question what harm is caused by ownership. Now, there is precedent for banning possession of materials but in those cases it is typically only if the liklihood if anyone causing harm with those materials is greater than the odds of them not doing so. Owning footage of a shooting does not, in my book, meet that criteria. Sharing the material could be argued to be harmful, psychologically speaking. To be honest, I don’t entirely buy that. Whike psychological damage should not be ignored entirely, we should acknowledge that it isn’t indiscriminate. Similar to how some children will be traumatized by horror movies while other children are capable of handling it, it’s simply difficult to evaluate one way or another how much harm could be caused by sharinf this.

Beyond all that though, what tics me off most about how New Zealand has handled this isn’t this law, although it does anger me. What I find most egregious is their general attitude towards this in a more broad sense. Instead of looking into and fighting the root causes of terrorist attacks, they instead go no further than the surface level and expect everything to be peachy in the long term.

Are you sure the harms caused by thievery are outweigh the costs of punishing theft? They're not particularly measurable. And of what is measurable... it costs a lot of money to keep prisoners: it's why they're a featured of modern society and social infrastructure.

"The root causes of terrorist attacks" are, in this case, argued to be:

• the capacity to commit a terrorist attack (new gun legislation and banning videos demonstrating how to carry out a terrorist attack)
• the motivation to commit a terrorist attack (banning the sharing of videos glorifying terrorist attacks)

Yeah... whatever reason you have to hate this law, the reasons you state are not them.

[Costa Fierro]

As it turns out, Arps was also seen at an anti-UN migration pact protest six weeks before the mosque shootings and called for Winston Peters, our foreign minister and Deputy Prime Minister, to be hanged.

[Loben The 2nd]

As it turns out, Arps was also seen at an anti-UN migration pact protest six weeks before the mosque shootings and called for Winston Peters, our foreign minister and Deputy Prime Minister, to be hanged.

And?

[Costa Fierro]

As it turns out, Arps was also seen at an anti-UN migration pact protest six weeks before the mosque shootings and called for Winston Peters, our foreign minister and Deputy Prime Minister, to be hanged.

And?

And police are investigating other threats made against the Deputy Prime Minister, who oddly enough essentially made his career in the last 25 years preaching anti-immigrant sentiments. However Arps making these threats could also have been revealed during the court process and factored into his sentencing, or perhaps could see him sentenced for longer.

However it would make things more interesting if others were arrested and charged with making threats against politicians. There was a man sentence to five years in prison for sending letters to the Department of Conservation threatening to take down their workers "one by one".

[Costa Fierro]

A 16 year old who was arrested on charges of distribution has admitted to a lesser charge of possessing the film. The individual who has name suppression due to his age, will likely avoid incarceration or similar punishment will instead be required to participate in a Family Group Conference.

[Nakena]

A 16 year old who was arrested on charges of distribution has admitted to a lesser charge of possessing the film. The individual who has name suppression due to his age, will likely avoid incarceration or similar punishment will instead be required to participate in a Family Group Conference.

That sounds like something more sensible than jailing people for sharing a video. really now.

[Costa Fierro]

That sounds like something more sensible than jailing people for sharing a video. really now.

You're not going to get jailed for sharing a video no matter what some disingenuous arguments made previously suggest. Arps was jailed purely because of his previous history as an offender and his criminal record.

This is more at addressing the underlying causes of youth offending in the sense that it would likely get them to avoid prison (which at age 16 is very much within the realm of possibility) and work towards a solution that benefits both the victims and the offender, because prison sometimes doesn't work for individuals.