2019-03-17 - New Zealand Police: "We would like to preserve any posts and technical data including IP addresses, email addresses etc"

[JuliusCaesar]

This sort of shit is the one time I'm grateful for how divided the gov't is in America. It's a lot harder to censor the web when no one up top can agree on what's okay to censor and what isn't, and they can't knee-jerk ban guns either.

I feel bad for the kiwis and ozzies getting punished for some rando psychopath's actions. Are they gonna take the gun away from that guy who saved most of his mosque's lives?

 

[LiPoPhil]

All of the people in there saying that censoring the video is totally fine because it's the equivalent of child porn are blowing my mind with their stupidity.

That's funny but also kind of the same reasoning for banning CP in the first place, isn't it? If CP videos hurt children, then videos about executing Muslims hurt said Muslims. Just sayin' there's a threshold in any society, even one with the most freedumz on the planet, where a thought crime becomes an actual crime.

 

[Stock Image Photographer]

That's funny but also kind of the same reasoning for banning CP in the first place, isn't it? If CP videos hurt children, then videos about executing Muslims hurt said Muslims. Just sayin' there's a threshold in any society, even one with the most freedumz on the planet, where a thought crime becomes an actual crime.

In addition to children being hurt just by the creation of CP, distribution and consumption of CP creates demand for yet more CP. The same cannot be said for videos of school shootings, terrorist attacks, etc.

 

[Carpenter Trout]

View attachment 699677
Quite an exceptional individual, as you can see.

Do I smell a lolcow?

That's funny but also kind of the same reasoning for banning CP in the first place, isn't it? If CP videos hurt children, then videos about executing Muslims hurt said Muslims. Just sayin' there's a threshold in any society, even one with the most freedumz on the planet, where a thought crime becomes an actual crime.

In addition to children being hurt just by the creation of CP, distribution and consumption of CP creates demand for yet more CP. The same cannot be said for videos of school shootings, terrorist attacks, etc.

How about all those LiveLeak videos with Jihadists killing people? or those very same videos on facebook?
Why isn't any of these journals talking about it saying the Jihad is terrible and should be stopped, with the very same fervency they're shitting on anything that is white and straight?

There are always two (three) kind of muslims: Jihadists (bloodthirsty extremists maniacs) [which most of the time includes Shiites, which are fundamentalists as fuck and always go to war against the Sunnis], and Sunnis (which also gets killed the Jihadist's terrorist attacks, and are the most chilled kind. The kind that lets her daughter go around in a more "Occidentalized" way. TL;DR: the ones that fight against the ISIS)

 

[YarrBlueballs]

In addition to children being hurt just by the creation of CP, distribution and consumption of CP creates demand for yet more CP. The same cannot be said for videos of school shootings, terrorist attacks, etc.

Didn't Null say that U.S. police wanted the video for 'training'? DOES THAT MAKE THEM TERRORISTS?!
Kiwis are acting as dumb as the actual bird.

 

[JuliusCaesar]

That's funny but also kind of the same reasoning for banning CP in the first place, isn't it? If CP videos hurt children, then videos about executing Muslims hurt said Muslims. Just sayin' there's a threshold in any society, even one with the most freedumz on the planet, where a thought crime becomes an actual crime.

In addition to children being hurt just by the creation of CP, distribution and consumption of CP creates demand for yet more CP. The same cannot be said for videos of school shootings, terrorist attacks, etc.

Yeah, that's a pretty damn big distinction. Viewing CP creates more child victims, viewing a terrorist attack video isn't going to create another terrorist attack. They're not really comparable. If you wanted to ban the terrorist attack video, you'd have to ban every video of people dying on the internet, which I don't foresee happening.

 

[LiPoPhil]

distribution and consumption of CP creates demand for yet more CP. The same cannot be said for videos of school shootings, terrorist attacks, etc.

Weeeeeell, there's at least one whole internet full of degenerates masturbating over that kind of stuff. All mainstream news organizations rely on the people's cravings for disasters and police chases to report about, which creates a prospering market for emulating dipshits. On the other hand, what creates the demand for CP is being a pedophile scumbag, not the existence of CP. If we decide that posession [of anything] out of "curiosity" is fine but masturbating to it is a no-no, then there's hardly a way to enforce it.

 

[MW 590]

Governments that don't respect fundamental rights are not legitimate and any nation that imprisons its citizens for merely sharing or viewing a video is not democratic. If a nation decided to pursue regime change for New Zealand, I would support it 100%. But that is obviously unlikely to happen, so the next best thing is to mock the fake kiwis for eternity.

I don’t see how banning a video made by a terrorist is violating people’s fundamental rights. The terrorist made the video because he wants to demonstrate his crimes to the world so allowing the video to circulate is what he wants.

The US Constitution also does not apply to New Zealand.

 

[YarrBlueballs]

I don’t see how banning a video made by a terrorist is violating people’s fundamental rights. The terrorist made the video because he wants to demonstrate his crimes to the world so allowing the video to circulate is what he wants.

The US Constitution also does not apply to New Zealand.

Freedom of Speech should be upheld in every country. If you don't, eventually shit will start being thrown, and people will die either from ignorance, or from revolution. Also, memory-holing was considered a sin during the USSR days when dictators did it, why wouldn't it be equally bad now if it's a 'democracy' doing it? Evil is evil, no matter how much gold it coats itself with.

Add onto that that today's modern ability to communicate around the world is homogenizing what it means to be a citizen, and the elites really don't like it since Pax Americana culture makes the common Westerner's grasp on fundamentals more in-line with the American system.

 

[TheBest]

"Will definitely consider what you have said. "

From the time I worked in an office, in this context, I think this means you ruined that guys week.

"My name is Joshua Moon, I'm a US Citizen.... And I don't give a single solitary fuck what section 50 of your faggot law say "

Fuck me this is so American its beautiful

I shed a tear and it turned into a bald eagle.

 

[Varg Did Nothing Wrong]

In addition to children being hurt just by the creation of CP, distribution and consumption of CP creates demand for yet more CP. The same cannot be said for videos of school shootings, terrorist attacks, etc.

This is a very bold statement to make and it has not been proven in any way but you're treating it as if it's fact.

Why do you consider it beyond the realm of possibility that an avid gorehound who is into watching school shootings might some day decide to graduate to committing them? Isn't that the exact same argument that people use to say there's no such thing as a non-offending pedophile - if you look at pictures of lolis you will eventually molest a child?

 

[Washington Post]

I don’t see how banning a video made by a terrorist is violating people’s fundamental rights. The terrorist made the video because he wants to demonstrate his crimes to the world so allowing the video to circulate is what he wants.

The US Constitution also does not apply to New Zealand.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution. There are very basic human rights that should be upheld in all countries. For example, if a government is murdering its own citizens, this is sometimes used as a justification to topple that government even if the murder of the citizens is legal under the nation's laws.

When a nation doesn't uphold basic human rights, the international community should ideally use various means available to them, such as sanctions or even military action, in extreme cases, to protect the citizens. Of course, this often doesn't happen, but that doesn't mean that the behavior of the New Zealand government should be considered acceptable, especially for a developed nation.

Arresting someone for viewing a video is an extreme punishment for something that shouldn't even be a crime in the first place. I can't imagine how someone would think it'd be acceptable for someone to lose 14 years of their life simply for viewing a video. Even a small fine would be going too far.

Edit: I'm not saying that New Zealand needs sanctions or military action obviously, lol. In a sane world, they'd have their reputation severely damaged as a result of these actions though.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Didn't Null say that U.S. police wanted the video for 'training'? DOES THAT MAKE THEM TERRORISTS?!
Kiwis are acting as dumb as the actual bird.

That's an excellent point. The US LEO are requesting this to help them decide what to do and not do. Civilians want it for the same reason.

If there was a mass people rush or even a four-person rush at 7:03, there'd be at least two dozen less dead people now and one of the dead people would be Tarrant.

The video makes that clear in a way that no journo's account can.

And it's ironic that the asspatting journo Marnie posted screenshots of the beginning of this thread. She's advocating KF site bans at the ISP level because it's haaateful and shaaameful, so how'd she get those to screenshot?

 

[Beautiful Border]

This has nothing to do with the Constitution. There are very basic human rights that should be upheld in all countries. For example, if a government is murdering its own citizens, this is sometimes used as a justification to topple that government even if the murder of the citizens is legal under the nation's laws.

When a nation doesn't uphold basic human rights, the international community should ideally use various means available to them, such as sanctions or even military action, in extreme cases, to protect the citizens. Of course, this often doesn't happen, but that doesn't mean that the behavior of the New Zealand government should be considered acceptable, especially for a developed nation.

Arresting someone for viewing a video is an extreme punishment for something that shouldn't even be a crime in the first place. I can't imagine how someone would think it'd be acceptable for someone to lose 14 years of their life simply for viewing a video. Even a small fine would be going too far.

Edit: I'm not saying that New Zealand needs sanctions or military action obviously, lol. In a sane world, they'd have their reputation severely damaged as a result of these actions though.

You should keep in mind that, up until this shooting, the biggest news story in New Zealand this year was that a family of Irish tourists were rowdy and tried to start fights with the locals (I'm not kidding). NZ is a country where shit like this simply doesn't happen, so now there's a lot of flailing around like headless chickens trying to deal with it. I don't think he's going to serve the full 14 years for it, he'll probably only be sentenced for a year or so with parole. Either that or there's a huge element to that case that is being withheld from the public (like he co-operated with Brendon in planning the shooting) but I doubt it.

 

[LiPoPhil]

Viewing CP creates more child victims, viewing a terrorist attack video isn't going to create another terrorist attack.

The child is already a victim and so are the dead Muslims, that's independent of the view count. Whether possession of "material" creates more of the crime depends on the sicko in possession, not on the material. Before anyone starts drooling, I don't care for the CP possession laws and don't want to change them, but only because I'm not affected - same goes for possession of meth or heroin. From a die-hard free speech absolutist point of view it's still a thought crime (like software piracy) unless proven otherwise.

 

[Male Idiot]

We are the Shitlords of the Universe! Fear our sassy comment threads, new Z-land.

 

[2nd_time_user]

The child is already a victim and so are the dead Muslims, that's independent of the view count. Whether possession of "material" creates more of the crime depends on the sicko in possession, not on the material. Before anyone starts drooling, I don't care for the CP possession laws and don't want to change them, but only because I'm not affected - same goes for possession of meth or heroin. From a die-hard free speech absolutist point of view it's still a thought crime (like software piracy) unless proven otherwise.

There's precedent for allowing CP. Traci Lords. The US recognized that it couldn't punish everyone who saw or even had in possession her pornography as that'd mean prosecuting almost anyone who watched porn in the mid-1980s--so it decriminalized having the videos if you had them before. People can't legally sell them, which I agree with.

 

[MW 590]

Freedom of Speech should be upheld in every country. If you don't, eventually shit will start being thrown, and people will die either from ignorance, or from revolution. Also, memory-holing was considered a sin during the USSR days when dictators did it, why wouldn't it be equally bad now if it's a 'democracy' doing it? Evil is evil, no matter how much gold it coats itself with.

Add onto that that today's modern ability to communicate around the world is homogenizing what it means to be a citizen, and the elites really don't like it since Pax Americana culture makes the common Westerner's grasp on fundamentals more in-line with the American system.

The US is the only country that has absolute freedom of speech(with exception to threats and defamation). It is unique to the US Constitution. All other democracies have a greater amount of exceptions to freedom of speech. Of course, no government should censor the truth. The corrupt European Union governments have gone to far and have been jailing people for exposing the truth about the correlation between open borders and terrorism, sexual assault, and rape. But New Zealand is not censoring the truth. They are not covering up the fact that this terrorist attack happened, they just don't want the video circulated because it can be used to glorify his crimes and inspire other sick people into committing similar acts.

So while I support absolute freedom of speech in the US, I do not support it in England when the true king is restored to the throne and England becomes an absolute monarchy again.

 

[HG 400]

The child is already a victim and so are the dead Muslims, that's independent of the view count.

Allowing people to view CP increases the market and encourages people to create more CP for profit. Nobody is making terrorist attack videos for profit.

 

[Edward]

The US Constitution also does not apply to New Zealand.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
— US Declaration of Independence

New Zealand is not censoring the truth.

The doorman greeted the shooter.
One of the victims attempted to tackle the shooter.
[insert list of defamatory statements directed at KiwiFarms here]