Man charged in relation to sharing Mosque Shooting Video

[Drongonia]

Source here

Following the disgusting Christchurch mosque attacks, the video which the alleged shooter produced was classified by New Zealand law as "disturbing footage" which means it is illegal by law to possess or distribute the material.

Today, a local Christchurch man was found guilty and sentenced in relation to that particular offence and others. Philip Neville Arps distributed the video, allegedly livestreamed it to 30 people on Facebook, and asked a video editor to add hit-markers and a kill count (presumably to make it look like Call of Duty gameplay) to share it around as a meme. He also showed a general distaste for Islam and Muslims throughout his arrest and trial.

At Christchurch District Court this morning, 44-year-old Arps was told by Judge Stephen O'Driscoll that it was clear he has "strong and unrepentant views towards the Muslim community". By spreading the video, and also having another version modified to have crosshairs and a "kill count" added, Arps "glorified" the shootings, the judge said. And by distributing the video the day after attack showed "particular cruelty on your part" and callousness. It was, in effect, a hate crime against the Muslim community, the judge said. When he was arrested and asked by police about the victims' deaths, he replied, "I could not give a f***". Judge O'Driscoll said it was clear that Arps holds "strong and unrepentant views towards the Muslim community". "Religion on a whole, Sir," Arps said from the dock.

Arps had previously pleaded guilty to one charge of sharing raw footage from the accused shooter's livestream to approximately 30 people on Facebook. He also pleaded guilty to requesting another person add crosshairs and a "kill count" to the video. The court heard he intended to distribute this modified footage as a meme. A police statement said Arps had called the modified footage "awesome" and showed no empathy for the people killed.

He also had one previous incident where he had visited the Al-Noor Mosque in Christchurch (where the majority of the deaths on March 15th were) with a group of other men, and delivered boxes of pigs heads and offal while shouting various white power style slurs and recording the event. In that particular case, he was charged $800NZ ($520US/$760AU/£415GBP/€563EUR) and charged with offensive behaviour.

All in all, he was sentenced to 21 months in prison, with the judge not wanting to convert his sentenced to an electronically-monitored one as he "has a high risk of reoffending". It is important to note that while the judge classified this as a hate crime towards Muslims, there is no hate crime legislation in New Zealand, and its potential introduction is currently a hotly debated issue.

So I ask you NSG, did he deserve his 21 months? More? Less? None? And as a secondary, do you support hate crime legislation?

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. 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.

[Galloism]

. He also pleaded guilty to requesting another person add crosshairs and a "kill count" to the video.

Very first thing I thought of.

He sounds like an absolutely lovely human being and all and is probably guilty of something, but I’m not much of a fan of banning “disturbing footage” from being possessed or shared.

Seems pretty authoritarian.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

AlHamdulillah. May Allah SWT punish him until he repents. Same goes for the terrorist. Aameen.

With that said, he shouldn't be charged for the pig head stuff. What he did is rude (and yucky, like why handle a bloody head, sawed off a while body? Yuck!), but nothing that should be a criminal offense.

[Saiwania]

They shouldn't be getting charged with anything. The people of New Zealand have a moral right to view the video footage if they so choose.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

They shouldn't be getting charged with anything. The people of New Zealand have a moral right to view the video footage if they so choose.

What moral right?

[Arcturus Novus]

Not sure I agree with the dude being arrested, but he's still a prick. May all his microwaved meals always have a cold spot that never heats up properly.

[Saiwania]

What moral right?

The freedom to view news or historical footage, no matter how graphic. I say down with most forms of censorship. New Zealand's government can try pretending that the event was so "tragic" and "awful" but I'd say that requires people to be able to see the footage in question, to even be able to believe that- if not coming to a different conclusion, which should be within their right.

[The Liberated Territories]

2 years rotting in prison with rapists and murderers for sharing a video? What the f

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What moral right?

The freedom to view news or historical footage, no matter how graphic. I say down with most forms of censorship. New Zealand's government can try pretending that the event was so "tragic" and "awful" but I'd say that requires people to be able to see the footage in question, to even be able to believe that- if not coming to a different conclusion, which should be within their right.

A different conclusion like?

[Turbofolkia]

AlHamdulillah. May Allah SWT punish him until he repents. Same goes for the terrorist. Aameen.

With that said, he shouldn't be charged for the pig head stuff. What he did is rude (and yucky, like why handle a bloody head, sawed off a while body? Yuck!), but nothing that should be a criminal offense.

Delivering pig heads to mosques and shouting white power slogans is offensive behaviour, which is a summary offence. It absolutely should be an offence since there must a be a line drawn on egregious behavior in public.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

AlHamdulillah. May Allah SWT punish him until he repents. Same goes for the terrorist. Aameen.

With that said, he shouldn't be charged for the pig head stuff. What he did is rude (and yucky, like why handle a bloody head, sawed off a while body? Yuck!), but nothing that should be a criminal offense.

Delivering pig heads to mosques and shouting white power slogans is offensive behaviour, which is a summary offence. It absolutely should be an offence since there must a be a line drawn on egregious behavior in public.

Like I said, yes, that's rude. I just don't see how that should be a criminal offense.

[Gormwood]

2 years rotting in prison with rapists and murderers for sharing a video? What the f

Would you say the same thing if it was kiddy porn instead of a snuff video of Muslims getting shot?

[Turbofolkia]

2 years rotting in prison with rapists and murderers for sharing a video? What the f

New Zealand has very clear and understandable laws on objectionable material. The video fits that classification and is understandably banned. The penalties for breaching the law are clear and any person charged would have been aware of them. Any person who wants to see the video should need good reason to do so. It is not the sort that should be available for general viewing.

The answer is obvious - If you don't like the law, don't come to New Zealand. If you live in New Zealand object to the law, justify change or live with the law.

[Galloism]

2 years rotting in prison with rapists and murderers for sharing a video? What the f

Would you say the same thing if it was kiddy porn instead of a snuff video of Muslims getting shot?

It’s worth note we treat kiddy porn that way for an economics reason, as there’s a thriving market in the purchase and sale of those videos, the profits from which drive further abuse from the child molesters profiting from it.

To my knowledge, there is no such industry when it comes to mass shooting videos.

[Galloism]

2 years rotting in prison with rapists and murderers for sharing a video? What the f

New Zealand has very clear and understandable laws on objectionable material. The video fits that classification and is understandably banned. The penalties for breaching the law are clear and any person charged would have been aware of them. Any person who wants to see the video should need good reason to do so. It is not the sort that should be available for general viewing.

The answer is obvious - If you don't like the law, don't come to New Zealand. If you live in New Zealand object to the law, justify change or live with the law.

I mean, by that definition, I guess I just shouldn’t mind all the forced marriage to rapists and such common and legal in the Middle East.

I do, though. I guess my only recourse is to not go there.

[Drongonia]

2 years rotting in prison with rapists and murderers for sharing a video? What the f

New Zealand has very clear and understandable laws on objectionable material. The video fits that classification and is understandably banned. The penalties for breaching the law are clear and any person charged would have been aware of them. Any person who wants to see the video should need good reason to do so. It is not the sort that should be available for general viewing.

The answer is obvious - If you don't like the law, don't come to New Zealand. If you live in New Zealand object to the law, justify change or live with the law.

While I understand the laws and the premise that he "did the crime, so he should do the time". You kinda highlighted a good point by your choice of words. You mentioned that it is not the sort that "should be available", but I think the argument is who should be the arbitrator of what should be okay to view? In a lot of cases, people don't think the government should be. This is coming from a kiwi by the way so I'm well aware of the classification system for media here.

[Proctopeo]

2 years rotting in prison with rapists and murderers for sharing a video? What the f

Would you say the same thing if it was kiddy porn instead of a snuff video of Muslims getting shot?

You and I both know those are very different things.

Anyway, this is a pretty stupid sentence. While I disagree with it being criminal in the first place, if you're gonna punish someone for this, make it, like, community service or some shit.

[Slavakino]

bump

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Would you say the same thing if it was kiddy porn instead of a snuff video of Muslims getting shot?

You and I both know those are very different things.

Anyway, this is a pretty stupid sentence. While I disagree with it being criminal in the first place, if you're gonna punish someone for this, make it, like, community service or some sh*t.

This actually makes sense.

[Turbofolkia]

Delivering pig heads to mosques and shouting white power slogans is offensive behaviour, which is a summary offence. It absolutely should be an offence since there must a be a line drawn on egregious behavior in public.

Like I said, yes, that's rude. I just don't see how that should be a criminal offense.

It's more than rude, it's more than just garden variety bullying, it's anti-social behaviour. Just like people don't have a right to intimidate worshippers at a synagogue by sending them anti-semitic material they don't have a right to intimidate people at a mosque by sending them pig heads. That's exactly the purpose of that legislation.

New Zealand has very clear and understandable laws on objectionable material. The video fits that classification and is understandably banned. The penalties for breaching the law are clear and any person charged would have been aware of them. Any person who wants to see the video should need good reason to do so. It is not the sort that should be available for general viewing.

The answer is obvious - If you don't like the law, don't come to New Zealand. If you live in New Zealand object to the law, justify change or live with the law.

I mean, by that definition, I guess I just shouldn’t mind all the forced marriage to rapists and such common and legal in the Middle East.

I do, though. I guess my only recourse is to not go there.

Oh come on, laws banning a video of a massacre is not the same as laws forcing a rape victim to marry their rapist...

[Galloism]

I mean, by that definition, I guess I just shouldn’t mind all the forced marriage to rapists and such common and legal in the Middle East.

I do, though. I guess my only recourse is to not go there.

Oh come on, laws banning a video of a massacre is not the same as laws forcing a rape victim to marry their rapist...

No, it’s not.

One is a restriction on right to free speech and press, the other a restriction on a number of other rights (privacy, association, bodily autonomy, etc).

[Saiwania]

The answer is obvious - If you don't like the law, don't come to New Zealand. If you live in New Zealand object to the law, justify change or live with the law.

Were I from New Zealand, I wouldn't like their laws to such an extent that I'd want to plot to overthrow its liberal government. But I'd probably do everything I can to leave New Zealand for a safer haven where NZ can't get me before doing everything in my power to undermine and generally shit on NZ's politics.

[Turbofolkia]

New Zealand has very clear and understandable laws on objectionable material. The video fits that classification and is understandably banned. The penalties for breaching the law are clear and any person charged would have been aware of them. Any person who wants to see the video should need good reason to do so. It is not the sort that should be available for general viewing.

The answer is obvious - If you don't like the law, don't come to New Zealand. If you live in New Zealand object to the law, justify change or live with the law.

While I understand the laws and the premise that he "did the crime, so he should do the time". You kinda highlighted a good point by your choice of words. You mentioned that it is not the sort that "should be available", but I think the argument is who should be the arbitrator of what should be okay to view? In a lot of cases, people don't think the government should be. This is coming from a kiwi by the way so I'm well aware of the classification system for media here.

Yeah I understand, but if someone is going to be the arbitrator, then it has to be government. At the end of the day, it’s recruitment material for white supremacists. New Zealand has never had absolute free speech rights. The video and the manifesto are up there with ISIS/Al-Qaeda recruitment materials, which have also been banned in New Zealand in the past, so it's not like the government is being arbitrary.

Besides, things do get reclassified over time. Maybe when the heat has gone from this event it might be reclassified.

[The Liberated Territories]

2 years rotting in prison with rapists and murderers for sharing a video? What the f

New Zealand has very clear and understandable laws on objectionable material. The video fits that classification and is understandably banned. The penalties for breaching the law are clear and any person charged would have been aware of them. Any person who wants to see the video should need good reason to do so. It is not the sort that should be available for general viewing.

The answer is obvious - If you don't like the law, don't come to New Zealand. If you live in New Zealand object to the law, justify change or live with the law.

The law sucks and is a good excuse never to set foot in New Zealand. And the law is never a standard for morality, lest we go back to the age of absolutism.

[Salus Maior]

. He also pleaded guilty to requesting another person add crosshairs and a "kill count" to the video.

Very first thing I thought of.

He sounds like an absolutely lovely human being and all and is probably guilty of something, but I’m not much of a fan of banning “disturbing footage” from being possessed or shared.

Seems pretty authoritarian.

I think it's pretty fair to prevent terrorist propaganda from being used.