Man charged in relation to sharing Mosque Shooting Video

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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.

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

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.

Y'all should make your own thread for this, or go to the LWDT. But personally I'd rather be a slave (to Allah SWT) than 'liberated'.

[Galloism]

Y'all should make your own thread for this, or go to the LWDT. But personally I'd rather be a slave (to Allah SWT) than 'liberated'.

You know what's the cool thing about liberty?

You can choose to be a slave to Allah, and no one will try to stop you.

[Galloism]

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.

Most pistols are semiautomatic firearms.

[Khataiy]

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.

Like I said with this logic the news even reporting the shooting could fall into this same category, there should be no restriction on posting the video in fact its the mass deplatformization and laws like these that people need to share and post these videos and will continue to do so, people want to see it, people want to know what happened, and people want to form their own opinions, banning this healthy and important process is an issue.

[Turbofolkia]

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.


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.

Like I said with this logic the news even reporting the shooting could fall into this same category, there should be no restriction on posting the video in fact its the mass deplatformization and laws like these that people need to share and post these videos and will continue to do so, people want to see it, people want to know what happened, and people want to form their own opinions, banning this healthy and important process is an issue.

I can see the point about watching the video for a legitimate educational purpose. Which is why, as I've said numerous times in this thread, there is a process by which access to the material covered by that restriction can be sought. Those applications will be considered carefully by an apolitical panel with a mandate to uphold NZ law. The fact that the truth around this 'ban' has not been disseminated or even reported on accurately, is an indictment on the nature of this debate, and not the laws and policies of NZ.

But if the purpose of sharing the video is nothing more than to laugh at 51 people getting killed, which is what was happening online, then yes, those posting the video for that purpose should face consequences.

[Galloism]

But if the purpose of sharing the video is nothing more than to laugh at 51 people getting killed, which is what was happening online, then yes, those posting the video for that purpose should face consequences.

Why?

I don't disagree they're douchebags, but why is laughing at a historical event it's wholly socially inappropriate to laugh at something that should be punishable by law?

[Turbofolkia]

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.

Most pistols are semiautomatic firearms.

I meant the ones readily available in Australia.

[Khataiy]

Like I said with this logic the news even reporting the shooting could fall into this same category, there should be no restriction on posting the video in fact its the mass deplatformization and laws like these that people need to share and post these videos and will continue to do so, people want to see it, people want to know what happened, and people want to form their own opinions, banning this healthy and important process is an issue.

I can see the point about watching the video for a legitimate educational purpose. Which is why, as I've said numerous times in this thread, there is a process by which access to the material covered by that restriction can be sought. Those applications will be considered carefully by an apolitical panel with a mandate to uphold NZ law. The fact that the truth around this 'ban' has not been disseminated or even reported on accurately, is an indictment on the nature of this debate, and not the laws and policies of NZ.

But if the purpose of sharing the video is nothing more than to laugh at 51 people getting killed, which is what was happening online, then yes, those posting the video for that purpose should face consequences.

There should be no process, and it should be open free from any interference or fear of prosecution, and no one should have to give you permission or tell you if you have a "legitimate" reason or not, it is unfortunate such people exist but they do and they will always exist and this is part of Democracy and a Free society, this is the Western world and by western standards it should be tolerated, otherwise its hypocritical and goes against basic values of the western sense of freedom and Democracy.

[Galloism]

Most pistols are semiautomatic firearms.

I meant the ones readily available in Australia.

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

[Turbofolkia]

But if the purpose of sharing the video is nothing more than to laugh at 51 people getting killed, which is what was happening online, then yes, those posting the video for that purpose should face consequences.

Why?

I don't disagree they're douchebags, but why is laughing at a historical event it's wholly socially inappropriate to laugh at something that should be punishable by law?

I don't think those merely watching the video for a laugh should be punished (which isn't happening in NZ as I've pointed out), it's the deliberate distribution of banned material for an illegitimate purpose that is, and should, attract the attention of the law. This is simply not something that should be available for general distribution, at least in the immediate months after the attack. I don't mind what people in the US or Europe choose to do with the video, but in the context of New Zealand (and Australia to a lesser extent), it's appropriate.

[Khataiy]

Why?

I don't disagree they're douchebags, but why is laughing at a historical event it's wholly socially inappropriate to laugh at something that should be punishable by law?

I don't think those merely watching the video for a laugh should be punished (which isn't happening in NZ as I've pointed out), it's the deliberate distribution of banned material for a legitimate purpose that is, and should, attract the attention of the law. This is simply not something that should be available for general distribution, at least in the immediate months after the attack. I don't mind what people in the US or Europe choose to do with the video, but in the context of New Zealand (and Australia to a lesser extent), it's appropriate.

It should not be banned in the first place.

[Galloism]

Why?

I don't disagree they're douchebags, but why is laughing at a historical event it's wholly socially inappropriate to laugh at something that should be punishable by law?

I don't think those merely watching the video for a laugh should be punished (which isn't happening in NZ as I've pointed out), it's the deliberate distribution of banned material for an illegitimate purpose that is, and should, attract the attention of the law. This is simply not something that should be available for general distribution, at least in the immediate months after the attack. I don't mind what people in the US or Europe choose to do with the video, but in the context of New Zealand (and Australia to a lesser extent), it's appropriate.

Let me rephrase the question.

Why is distribution of footage of a historical event so people can inappropriately laugh at it something that should be punishable by law?

[Kowani]

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.

That didn’t actually answer the question.

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

These freedoms are gained only though the abridgment of other freedoms. Moreover, there is more to a good life than just the freedom to-there is also freedom from. Freedom from fear, violence, disease, etc. Yet this one, which is much more important in the long run (panem et circenses) after all. Yet these freedoms require the greatest infringement upon everything else, not just in action (do not murder), but inaction-pay taxes. Be vaccinated. Etc. Yet to claim that a society that does not protect these is a good society to live in, would be folly. Freedom is only of value if there is security, both economic and physical. And even then, both freedom and security are only of value if the populace is well cared for.

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,

Yeah, that’s completely untrue.

all goals can be striven for, all pleasures can be enjoyed.

Seriously, no.

Without liberty, we are nothing but slaves.

Hyperbole, if not untrue.

[Turbofolkia]

There should be no process, and it should be open free from any interference or fear of prosecution, and no one should have to give you permission or tell you if you have a "legitimate" reason or not, it is unfortunate such people exist but they do and they will always exist and this is part of Democracy and a Free society, this is the Western world and by western standards it should be tolerated, otherwise its hypocritical and goes against basic values of the western sense of freedom and Democracy.

Let me rephrase the question.

Why is distribution of footage of a historical event so people can inappropriately laugh at it something that should be punishable by law?

I don't see the link between what is essentially a snuff video and western values of free speech and democracy. Nobody is denying your right to call the shooter a hero, criticise the laws or even merely watch the video. This is something very specific and contextualised.

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.

[Khataiy]

There should be no process, and it should be open free from any interference or fear of prosecution, and no one should have to give you permission or tell you if you have a "legitimate" reason or not, it is unfortunate such people exist but they do and they will always exist and this is part of Democracy and a Free society, this is the Western world and by western standards it should be tolerated, otherwise its hypocritical and goes against basic values of the western sense of freedom and Democracy.

Let me rephrase the question.

Why is distribution of footage of a historical event so people can inappropriately laugh at it something that should be punishable by law?

I don't see the link between what is essentially a snuff video and western values of free speech and democracy. Nobody is denying your right to call the shooter a hero, criticise the laws or even merely watch the video. This is something very specific and contextualised.

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.

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.

[Galloism]

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.

That didn’t actually answer the question.

We all do, basically.

These freedoms are gained only though the abridgment of other freedoms. Moreover, there is more to a good life than just the freedom to-there is also freedom from. Freedom from fear, violence, disease, etc. Yet this one, which is much more important in the long run (panem et circenses) after all. Yet these freedoms require the greatest infringement upon everything else, not just in action (do not murder), but inaction-pay taxes. Be vaccinated. Etc. Yet to claim that a society that does not protect these is a good society to live in, would be folly. Freedom is only of value if there is security, both economic and physical. And even then, both freedom and security are only of value if the populace is well cared for.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Some security is essential of course, but we must balance that with our liberties. If we’re willing to give up liberty for safety, we will wind up with neither.

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,

Yeah, that’s completely untrue.

all goals can be striven for, all pleasures can be enjoyed.

Seriously, no.

Without liberty, we are nothing but slaves.

Hyperbole, if not untrue.

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

[Galloism]

There should be no process, and it should be open free from any interference or fear of prosecution, and no one should have to give you permission or tell you if you have a "legitimate" reason or not, it is unfortunate such people exist but they do and they will always exist and this is part of Democracy and a Free society, this is the Western world and by western standards it should be tolerated, otherwise its hypocritical and goes against basic values of the western sense of freedom and Democracy.

Let me rephrase the question.

Why is distribution of footage of a historical event so people can inappropriately laugh at it something that should be punishable by law?

I don't see the link between what is essentially a snuff video and western values of free speech and democracy. Nobody is denying your right to call the shooter a hero, criticise the laws or even merely watch the video. This is something very specific and contextualised.

Notably, possession of the video or manifesto is also against the law. Very specifically, they’re saying you don’t have the right to watch the video.

I don’t know that they’ve prosecuted anyone for possession yet, but it is against the law.

That being said, you didn’t really answer my question. While you’re thinking about it, please ponder this:

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

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.

That’s utterly ridiculous. You just justified The Patriot Act, something utterly unjustifiable.

[Turbofolkia]

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.

[Kowani]

That didn’t actually answer the question.

We all do, basically.

Yes, that’s never been abused. Ever.

These freedoms are gained only though the abridgment of other freedoms. Moreover, there is more to a good life than just the freedom to-there is also freedom from. Freedom from fear, violence, disease, etc. Yet this one, which is much more important in the long run (panem et circenses) after all. Yet these freedoms require the greatest infringement upon everything else, not just in action (do not murder), but inaction-pay taxes. Be vaccinated. Etc. Yet to claim that a society that does not protect these is a good society to live in, would be folly. Freedom is only of value if there is security, both economic and physical. And even then, both freedom and security are only of value if the populace is well cared for.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Yes, we all love pithy Ben Franklin. Oh, wait, no. He’s entirely wrong.

Some security is essential of course, but we must balance that with our liberties. If we’re willing to give up liberty for safety, we will wind up with neither.

So you say, yet somehow that’s not historically true.

Yeah, that’s completely untrue.
Seriously, no.

Hyperbole, if not untrue.

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.

[Khataiy]

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.

It is his right to do so though and he did nothing wrong either, it seems as if you don't want people forming their own opinions. Sharing it and showing it can be done for any number of reasons and it should not be filtered or restricted, and yes telling another leader of a country not to do something like share a video and make the statements he/she desires is childish and idiotic if Erdogan wants to do that he is more than entitled to do so as the leader of his country (I don't like Erdogan or support him so save yourself the time if you want to go there).

[Galloism]

We all do, basically.

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.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Yes, we all love pithy Ben Franklin. Oh, wait, no. He’s entirely wrong.

Some security is essential of course, but we must balance that with our liberties. If we’re willing to give up liberty for safety, we will wind up with neither.

So you say, yet somehow that’s not historically true.

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

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. 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.

[Turbofolkia]

Notably, possession of the video or manifesto is also against the law. Very specifically, they’re saying you don’t have the right to watch the video.

I don’t know that they’ve prosecuted anyone for possession yet, but it is against the law.

Possession, is a legal team meaning, well, actually possessing the video (e.g downloading it to your hard drive). It's not enough to merely click on a link.

That’s utterly ridiculous. You just justified The Patriot Act, something utterly unjustifiable.

I have no idea what that is, nor do I see the relevance of a US law to NZ gun laws.

[Turbofolkia]

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.

It is his right to do so though and he did nothing wrong either, it seems as if you don't want people forming their own opinions. Sharing it and showing it can be done for any number of reasons and it should not be filtered or restricted, and yes telling another leader of a country not to do something like share a video and make the statements he/she desires is childish and idiotic if Erdogan wants to do that he is more than entitled to do so as the leader of his country (I don't like Erdogan or support him so save yourself the time if you want to go there).

Yeah, he did nothing wrong under Turkish law. Nobody is calling him out on that, but there is a thing called a diplomatic incident, which is what he caused. That's all.

[Galloism]

Notably, possession of the video or manifesto is also against the law. Very specifically, they’re saying you don’t have the right to watch the video.

I don’t know that they’ve prosecuted anyone for possession yet, but it is against the law.

Possession, is a legal team meaning, well, actually possessing the video (e.g downloading it to your hard drive). It's not enough to merely click on a link.

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 have no idea what that is, nor do I see the relevance of a US law to NZ gun laws.

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.

[Khataiy]

It is his right to do so though and he did nothing wrong either, it seems as if you don't want people forming their own opinions. Sharing it and showing it can be done for any number of reasons and it should not be filtered or restricted, and yes telling another leader of a country not to do something like share a video and make the statements he/she desires is childish and idiotic if Erdogan wants to do that he is more than entitled to do so as the leader of his country (I don't like Erdogan or support him so save yourself the time if you want to go there).

Yeah, he did nothing wrong under Turkish law. Nobody is calling him out on that, but there is a thing called a diplomatic incident, which is what he caused. That's all.

In principle he did nothing wrong, and the diplomatic incident was a stupid one, its a sign of weakness on behalf of the Australian and Anzac governments it makes them look like cry babies and like they focus on all the wrong things. The bottom line is there should be no issues whatsoever for sharing this video or manifesto whether you are the President of Turkey or some guy who sits around laughing at the shooter for doing a "good job" because he didn't have the balls to do it himself.