Australia blocks access to 8 websites showing video of New Zealand mosque attacks

[webfact]

Australia blocks access to 8 websites showing video of New Zealand mosque attacks

 

FILE PHOTO: A flower tribute is seen outside Al Noor mosque where more than 40 people were killed by a suspected white supremacist during Friday prayers on March 15, in Christchurch, New Zealand March 27, 2019. REUTERS/Edgar Su

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia has ordered internet service providers to block access to eight websites still showing footage of deadly attacks on two mosques in New Zealand earlier this year.

 

A lone gunman armed with semi-automatic weapons attacked Muslims attending Friday prayers in Christchurch on New Zealand’s South Island on March 15, killing 51 people in the country’s worst mass shooting. The attacker broadcast the shooting live on Facebook, and footage was widely shared.

 

Most websites quickly removed links to the video, but Australia's eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant said on Sunday eight local sites had defied her requests for the content to be deleted.

 

"We cannot allow this heinous material to be used to promote, incite or instruct in further terrorist acts," Grant said in an emailed statement.

 

The blocking of the eight websites comes amid a concentrated effort by Australia to clamp-down on the sharing of violent content online.

 

Australia in April passed legislation that allowed Canberra to fine social media companies up to 10% of their annual global turnover and imprison executives for up to three years if violent content is not removed “expeditiously”.

 

It is now an offence in Australia for companies such as Facebook Inc <FB.O> and Alphabet Inc’s <GOOGL.O> Google, which owns video sharing site YouTube, not to remove any videos or photographs that show murder, torture or rape without delay.

 

Companies must also inform Australian police within a “reasonable” timeframe.

 

(Reporting by Colin Packham. Editing by Lincoln Feast.)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-09

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[thaibeachlovers]

Either we have "free speech", or we don't. Governments may decide to censor the internet,  but then they should be honest about it. 

Is censorship a good thing- perhaps they should have a referendum?

 

Personally I'd be happy to see the internet banned in it's present version. It just encourages hateful people to bully others while hiding behind anonymity.

I might have to give up TVF, but I'm sure I'd survive. Plenty of books to read instead.

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Either we have "free speech", or we don't. Governments may decide to censor the internet,  but then they should be honest about it. 

Is censorship a good thing- perhaps they should have a referendum?

 

Personally I'd be happy to see the internet banned in it's present version. It just encourages hateful people to bully others while hiding behind anonymity.

I might have to give up TVF, but I'm sure I'd survive. Plenty of books to read instead.

Thaivisa is not hate speech though there is a lot of Thai bashing going on.

 

Of course certain things should be banned, be-headings stuff like this shooting. Seems logical to me. Total free speech is crazy  

[Bluespunk]

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Either we have "free speech", or we don't. Governments may decide to censor the internet,  but then they should be honest about it. 

Is censorship a good thing- perhaps they should have a referendum?

 

Personally I'd be happy to see the internet banned in it's present version. It just encourages hateful people to bully others while hiding behind anonymity.

I might have to give up TVF, but I'm sure I'd survive. Plenty of books to read instead.

Shutting down web sites showing a hate fuelled bigot murdering people is not really a free speech issue. 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Bluespunk

[JamesBlond]

Unfortunately, I agree with this. Free speech is all very well for sophisticated people, but the masses can't handle it.

Any kind of censorship does have a political dimension though, so it's necessary to allow frank discussion of all the relevant issues in cases such as this by proper means, and I currently don't see that happening.

[Saint Nick]

43 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Either we have "free speech", or we don't. Governments may decide to censor the internet,  but then they should be honest about it. 

Is censorship a good thing- perhaps they should have a referendum?

 

Personally I'd be happy to see the internet banned in it's present version. It just encourages hateful people to bully others while hiding behind anonymity.

I might have to give up TVF, but I'm sure I'd survive. Plenty of books to read instead.

There has always been censorship and there always will be!

In the 80's a controversial video- series called "Faces of death" was completely off limits, because it showed REAL people and animals, be killed or mutilated!

Not for any scientific reasons (like the latest BBC animal- documentary) but just for the "enjoyment" of the viewer!

Why anyone would want to watch REAL people getting killed, is beyond me!

Everybody who wants to watch this is sick, IMHO! 

[Longcut]

11 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Unfortunately, I agree with this. Free speech is all very well for sophisticated people, but the masses can't handle it.

Any kind of censorship does have a political dimension though, so it's necessary to allow frank discussion of all the relevant issues in cases such as this by proper means, and I currently don't see that happening.

But, who is to decide what should be banned and what should not be? Once that bell has been rung, there is no unringing it!

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Shutting down web sites showing a hate fuelled bigot murdering people is not really a free speech issue. 

I agree. I was being devil's advocate.

However, there are so many hateful people on the internet I'd like to see it closed down in it's present format. Keep it just for information etc.

We all survived quite nicely before the internet allowed us to attack other people while being anonymous.

People could go back to using the library for time wasting, and it would solve the problem of people stealing intellectual property.

[FarFlungFalang]

This Australian government recently raided their own government funded broadcaster looking for any "anti" government information.Now they are telling the world what it can and cannot put on the internet or face gaol time.Good luck with that. 

[Rimmer]

A post in foreign language  has been removed also replies.

This is an ENGLISH forum

[JamesBlond]

14 minutes ago, Longcut said:

But, who is to decide what should be banned and what should not be? Once that bell has been rung, there is no unringing it!

The logical extension to that though is that nothing should be banned, and then you have anarchy.

 

We grow up being guided by our parents who ban all sorts of things. We elect governments to make moral judgements according to our own culture on what is appropriate and permissible. We have a legal system to enforce the control of many types of behaviour deemed dangerous or anti-social. I have no problem with any of that. It's necessary. 

 

Proper debate should carry on though - people have opinions and they need to be heard. Trying to sweep them under the carpet (the leftist solution to most things they don't like) won't make them go away, but the video itself is should be suppressed, if only out of decency - I don't think anyone would argue with that.

 

[Greyhat]

Love governments treating me like a child. All aboard the slippery slope!

[MisterTee]

What about banning the ultraviolent Hollywood movies where Muslims are always the bad guys?

[Sujo]

51 minutes ago, Greyhat said:

Love governments treating me like a child. All aboard the slippery slope!

Well its obvious some adults act like children so there is a need for such sensorship.

[FarFlungFalang]

28 minutes ago, MisterTee said:

What about banning the ultraviolent Hollywood movies where Muslims are always the bad guys?

There's that word "always" which puts a big hole in your statement. 

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Thaivisa is not hate speech though there is a lot of Thai bashing going on.

 

Of course certain things should be banned, be-headings stuff like this shooting. Seems logical to me. Total free speech is crazy  

True. Free speech is the cause of a lit of craziness in the world. Our species is not developed enough to be allowed such luxury.

 

There is no free speech in the aussie constitution.

[Cats4ever]

2 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

This Australian government recently raided their own government funded broadcaster looking for any "anti" government information.Now they are telling the world what it can and cannot put on the internet or face gaol time.Good luck with that. 

They are not telling the world - they are telling providers serving Australia. In this I support them. I am not a supporter of all their endeavours, including the first one you mentioned.

[giddyup]

3 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

This Australian government recently raided their own government funded broadcaster looking for any "anti" government information.Now they are telling the world what it can and cannot put on the internet or face gaol time.Good luck with that. 

I suppose kiddie porn should be freely available as well as beheadings and torture, maybe the odd snuff movie?

[ravip]

2 hours ago, JamesBlond said:

Unfortunately, I agree with this. Free speech is all very well for sophisticated people, but the masses can't handle it.

Any kind of censorship does have a political dimension though, so it's necessary to allow frank discussion of all the relevant issues in cases such as this by proper means, and I currently don't see that happening.

Pray tell me, who would choose these "sophisticated people"?

Already, there are many who consider themselves in that category, but their behaviour is totally the opposite (maybe due to the "type" of sophistication?)

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, ravip said:

Pray tell me, who would choose these "sophisticated people"?

Already, there are many who consider themselves in that category, but their behaviour is totally the opposite (maybe due to the "type" of sophistication?)

I would consider Jeffrey Epstein and his ilk "sophisticated", but often those kind of people, ie those with wealth and power are the most degenerate.

[Deerculler]

Maybe the Australian Govt.

don’t want known that it was a Australian citizen that did the shooting in New Zealand.

 

[simple1]

2 hours ago, Greyhat said:

Love governments treating me like a child. All aboard the slippery slope!

Unfortunately the video content, plus the mass murderer 'manifesto' are available via some web sites who have refused to remove the content at the request of government. The content has been praised, quoted and actions actually attempted to be copied with killings by some from the violent extremist far right IMO there is nothing that justifies the content being available to the general public. 

 

It must be deeply offensive to the victim's families and friends that the killer has pleaded 'not guilty' in order to have the opportunity to push his agenda, hopefully the Court will not permit his testimony in Open Court. When the killer was arrested he kept asking the police for the number of people he murdered, his 'body count'. The man is pure evil and should never have the opportunity to communicate his ideology for public consumption ever again.

[Longcut]

3 hours ago, JamesBlond said:

The logical extension to that though is that nothing should be banned, and then you have anarchy.

 

We grow up being guided by our parents who ban all sorts of things. We elect governments to make moral judgements according to our own culture on what is appropriate and permissible. We have a legal system to enforce the control of many types of behaviour deemed dangerous or anti-social. I have no problem with any of that. It's necessary. 

 

Proper debate should carry on though - people have opinions and they need to be heard. Trying to sweep them under the carpet (the leftist solution to most things they don't like) won't make them go away, but the video itself is should be suppressed, if only out of decency - I don't think anyone would argue with that.

 

Don't complain then when maybe your new Muslim representatives change the laws in your country. After all, "We elect governments to make moral judgements according to our own their, culture on what is appropriate and permissible. We have a legal system to enforce the control of many types of behaviour deemed dangerous or anti-social. I have no problem with any of that. It's necessary". 

[from the home of CC]

you tell people they can't have something and you create a market for it, human nature..

[phantomfiddler]

Having worked in the jungles of Indonesia for 15 years, and reading of several occasions where Christians were burned alive in their churches while worshiping on Sundays, I find it surprising that none of these events were televised and aired for the internet.

Could it be that our muslim friends are also not in favour of showing such horrifying spectacles for the public view ?

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

Having worked in the jungles of Indonesia for 15 years, and reading of several occasions where Christians were burned alive in their churches while worshiping on Sundays, I find it surprising that none of these events were televised and aired for the internet.

Could it be that our muslim friends are also not in favour of showing such horrifying spectacles for the public view ?

Did you read about it in indonesia?

[Roadman]

17 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

Having worked in the jungles of Indonesia for 15 years, and reading of several occasions where Christians were burned alive in their churches while worshiping on Sundays, I find it surprising that none of these events were televised and aired for the internet.

Could it be that our muslim friends are also not in favour of showing such horrifying spectacles for the public view ?

You mean like the Jordanian pilot who was burnt alive and plenty of other gruesome videos that are freely available on the web

[sunnyboy2018]

5 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Shutting down web sites showing a hate fuelled bigot murdering people is not really a free speech issue. 

Should such incidents be reported? Written about?  Discussed on radio? Why has this footage been banned? Because its shocking?

[Totoandlilly]

6 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Shutting down web sites showing a hate fuelled bigot murdering people is not really a free speech issue. 

But it’s censorship.

[JamesBlond]

2 hours ago, ravip said:

Pray tell me, who would choose these "sophisticated people"?

Already, there are many who consider themselves in that category, but their behaviour is totally the opposite (maybe due to the "type" of sophistication?)

I wasn't suggesting choosing anybody for anything. Not sure how you arrived that that. I'm saying that the rule should be applied because we can fairly assume that the uneducated, disgruntled hoi polloi are quite likely to commit copy-cat atrocities (if only because they don't have the imagination to think for themselves).