2022-05-18 - Government of Australia: URGENT class 1 removal notice from the eSafety Commissioner [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not to open a can of worms here but for the purposes of expressing the nature of free speech - would anyone on here find it disturbing if someone tried to ask a website to remove content relating to the rape and murder of a child?

Given that this horrid act is also illegal as well as acts of terrorism, are we really expressing that we are open to free speech, or just that we think that Terorism isn't so bad and should be viewed at ones leisure? Because some find the idea of a gunman shooting lots of people for joy just as disgusting as other things - like the raping and killing of children.

A comment purely for the purpose of showing are we actually fighting for free speech or just what we think is acceptable? Because threatening others too is free speech but that is even bared on KF.

Would a video of a terrorist going through a school and blowing children away be met with the same response as "its free speech"? Just putting it out there to see what everyone else thinks.
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Pillar of Autism, FreakyFredsTrannyGranny, Mountain Dew and 16 others
Simply Outplayed-HD said:
Oh I got a message from the Australian Government that has no jurisdiction over me at all whatsoever? I guess I'll just shut down my entire website to comply. Fucking aids. Embarrassing that my taxes went towards paying for this. I remember in 2019 when the Christchurch shooting happened and a couple of the largest ISPs decided to block 4chan and Kiwifarms. It's fucking gay.
Click to expand...
if 4chan can ip ban stuff, it is fair for the ISPs to block that filth
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Dork Of Ages, Pillar of Autism and 1 other person
Australians all let us rejoice
For we are young and free
37B585E900000578-3759910-image-m-24_1472546988514.jpg

Screenshot_20220518-064603.jpg
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Lone MacReady, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Snack Cracker and 10 others
MadStan said:
Not to open a can of worms here but for the purposes of expressing the nature of free speech - would anyone on here find it disturbing if someone tried to ask a website to remove content relating to the rape and murder of a child?
Click to expand...
This would count as CP, which is illegal in murica and doesn't fall under free speech. I think its also universally agreed that anything involving CP should be removed from any platform it resides on.
MadStan said:
Given that this horrid act is also illegal as well as acts of terrorism, are we really expressing that we are open to free speech, or just that we think that Terorism isn't so bad and should be viewed at ones leisure? Because some find the idea of a gunman shooting lots of people for joy just as disgusting as other things - like the raping and killing of children.
Click to expand...
Terrorism as an act is illegal, video of said acts is not. Going off the above point, both raping a child and the distribution of the video of the act are both illegal. I guess a good way to look at it is to ask the question of "would an unrelated bystander filming it be arrested?"
MadStan said:
Would a video of a terrorist going through a school and blowing children away be met with the same response as "its free speech"? Just putting it out there to see what everyone else thinks.
Click to expand...
This would probably be pretty polarising, I think it would be legal to show and host it, but I imagine the majority of people wouldn't want to be associated with it. Of course I cant speak for everyone on that though.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: lrresistable, ApeBass, CansOfCant and 13 others
rodentia said:
This would count as CP, which is illegal in murica and doesn't fall under free speech. I think its also universally agreed that anything involving CP should be removed from any platform it resides on.

Terrorism as an act is illegal, video of said acts is not. Going off the above point, both raping a child and the distribution of the video of the act are both illegal. I guess a good way to look at it is to ask the question of "would an unrelated bystander filming it be arrested?"

This would probably be pretty polarising, I think it would be legal to show and host it, but I imagine the majority of people wouldn't want to be associated with it. Of course I cant speak for everyone on that though.
Click to expand...
You have great answers - all of which are accurate and above board.

Terrorism is also illegal with CP obviously, but how do we decide that the violent act of blowing away people with a gun is protected content, but the violent act of not killing children but raping them is not protected.

My point I guess I am trying to make is under the definition of free speech we are allowing a lot of content to exist that has nothing to really do with "free speech" and have decided some things are horrid and will not be protected while others are. It is arbitrary in nature and in reality as a society we have capped free speech on both sides of the argument but in the purest form, we have all condoned censorship.

Expression of belief and killing people in mass is protected, but the expression of abhorrent love or lust for a child is not an expression of belief?

And further, some societies on Earth view some things as more horrid the others, so when a country opts to remove disgusting content of a violent act that is grotesque such as a human mowing down people and blowing their brains out, I can understand why they feel this has nothing to do with expression of free speech anymore so than the defiling of a child is an expression of free speech.

Both acts are illegal, but we in Murica have decided we are so accustomed to the violent act that it is acceptable content. Even though illegal. It's food for thought. I would ask some people to accept that some countries rarely ever see gunmen do what they do in the USA and the content is incredibly disturbing and I do not think it is hard to see some reason why they censor it.
 
  • Dumb
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Autistic
Reactions: ApeBass, polyester, Happy Fish and 15 others
MadStan said:
Not to open a can of worms here but for the purposes of expressing the nature of free speech - would anyone on here find it disturbing if someone tried to ask a website to remove content relating to the rape and murder of a child?

Given that this horrid act is also illegal as well as acts of terrorism, are we really expressing that we are open to free speech, or just that we think that Terorism isn't so bad and should be viewed at ones leisure? Because some find the idea of a gunman shooting lots of people for joy just as disgusting as other things - like the raping and killing of children.

A comment purely for the purpose of showing are we actually fighting for free speech or just what we think is acceptable? Because threatening others too is free speech but that is even bared on KF.

Would a video of a terrorist going through a school and blowing children away be met with the same response as "its free speech"? Just putting it out there to see what everyone else thinks.
Click to expand...
The buffalo shooting is news/history at this point and it will clearly be used as a example for future laws or to ilustrates /take down certains ideologies.
It's informative for us and future generation in a way that the rape/murder of a random child isn't.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: ApeBass, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Lizard Pope and 7 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back