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

[chokrai]

20 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

You really don't get that shutting down websites showing a racist bigot murdering people because of their faith isn't a free speech issue, do you?

The problem is who gets to decide what we get to see.

[sawadee1947]

10 hours 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.

Oh dear..... freedom of speech. Even here on Thai visa it is not granted. ????

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, chokrai said:

The problem is who gets to decide what we get to see.

The people we selected, or elected if you prefer.

[Dumbastheycome]

Perhaps  opinion could be be better rationalized about this  ban if it is considered that the original video released  via  media  was for "news  Worthy" raw coverage and perhaps  justifiably so for such an unexpected  horrific event. Now months  afterwards  the video content has become a subject  for  ghoulish public reviews  with the enhancements of published "manifesto" etc etc which surely has the risk of incitement to a fringe element. Does a healthy society need repeatative visual confirmation to assist any debate or discussion about an event?

Is the action of the Australians a  demonstration  of  " censorship"  or  a censure on an element of sick fascination?

 

 

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

Appalling! Australia the next fascist state censoring free speech. People viewing the video will not bring back the dead. The Copy cat argument is <deleted> stupid

What do you mean ‘next fascist state’

 

Australia has no constitutional right to free speech, it has always been censored. Any hate speech can land you in jail quite easily.

 

The law is from the right wing conservative govt. The nly time I have agreed with them.

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, chokrai said:

The problem is who gets to decide what we get to see.

If involves watching someone being murdered, then it really isn’t that hard to decide. 

 

Shut down anyone showing such videos. 

 

People have the right to free speech, no one has the right to watch another person murdered. 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Bluespunk

[singking]

Censorship is more and more common in the world,because politicians don’t want the people to see the truth, they all want us to live a lie. Poor decision by the nanny state government.
 
In europe plenty of people are being jailed for telling the truth about the peaceful religion, we see Facebook,twitter, YouTube etc ban people who have conservative opinions.
 
either you have freedom of speech or you don’t have it at all, there is not such thing as party freedom of speech or totally freedom of speech.
 
have you ever heard someone saying someone are only partly pedophile? I haven’t.... when the radical leftist politicians tell us a lie everyday don’t make the lie the truth. Time for sleezy people to wake up.

Didn’t know Trump was a “leftist”


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Mick501]

Scariest thing is that NZ has actually charged dozens of people with possessing the video, as it has been deemed "offensive" by their classification board, and thereby possessing it constitutes a criminal act.  

 

Not  sure about the nature of the people who held on to a copy, but more than likely for the most part they would be people who hit the save button to show their mates for a bit of shock value.  Possibly one or two who are messed up enough to consider it some sort of instructional video, but generally those types are surveillance conscious and will be using VPNs and other security to make tracking them far more difficult.

 

the NZ legislation seems to make criminals out of people who are not.  

[RJRS1301]

6 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Scariest thing is that NZ has actually charged dozens of people with possessing the video, as it has been deemed "offensive" by their classification board, and thereby possessing it constitutes a criminal act.  

 

Not  sure about the nature of the people who held on to a copy, but more than likely for the most part they would be people who hit the save button to show their mates for a bit of shock value.  Possibly one or two who are messed up enough to consider it some sort of instructional video, but generally those types are surveillance conscious and will be using VPNs and other security to make tracking them far more difficult.

 

the NZ legislation seems to make criminals out of people who are not.  

It will be for the courts to decide, guilty or not guilty after the courts hear evidence

[RJRS1301]

7 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

If involves watching someone being murdered, then it really isn’t that hard to decide. 

 

Shut down anyone showing such videos. 

 

People have the right to free speech, no one has the right to watch another person murdered. 

With rights, come responsibilities. 

Australia does not have a Bill of Rights, and freedom speech is not mentioned in the constitution.

Agree with the taking down of the footage and his manifesto. 

[Chomper Higgot]

I wonder if the banned sites had been publishing Muslim terrorists beheading women or British/Americans they had captured would those in this thread ‘defending free speech’ be so keen to do so?

 

I personally doubt they would.

[jastheace]

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I wonder if the banned sites had been publishing Muslim terrorists beheading women or British/Americans they had captured would those in this thread ‘defending free speech’ be so keen to do so?

 

I personally doubt they would.

good point well made

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 3:45 PM, 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.

 

I disagree. If I was clever enough to be sent to kill other people in a war, I'm clever enough to make decisions about what I look at or listen to. I chose not to look at the VDOs because I'm don't want to see such, just as I didn't go to the mosque in Riyadh after Friday prayers to see people having their heads cut off.

Real freedom may cause some problems, but with some effective laws about actually doing bad things, the fall out would not last too long, IMO.

I can choose to drink alcoholic beverages, one of the worst drugs in society, or not. Why is it worse to be able to watch a VDO? Do they think thousands of citizens will go out and commit copy cat crimes? That would indicate that the authorities do not respect the intelligence of their citizens- the ones that pay for their lux lifestyle.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 1:14 AM, stevenl said:

The people we selected, or elected if you prefer.

In NZ the government was elected by a minority and the system they use allows people that were not voted for to be in government. Why should they be allowed to control what I look at when they are just ordinary people like everyone else and  happened to become the government? They don't become wise just because they get to put MP after their name on the stationary.

At the least, they should have a referendum.

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

<SNIP>Do they think thousands of citizens will go out and commit copy cat crimes? That would indicate that the authorities do not respect the intelligence of their citizens- the ones that pay for their lux lifestyle.

Security agencies have already identified far right extremists who point to the Christchurch mass murderer's actions & manifesto as 'inspiration' for their murders / attempted murders. As posted previously IMO there is no justification for permitting web content companies to provide access. In the same manner that governments around the world are endeavouring to keep violent Islamist content from being accessed. Some of the posts supporting 'freedom of speech' for far right violent extremist ideology smell of hypocrisy.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Security agencies have already identified far right extremists who point to the Christchurch mass murderer's actions & manifesto as 'inspiration' for their murders / attempted murders. As posted previously IMO there is no justification for permitting web content companies to provide access. In the same manner that governments around the world are endeavouring to keep violent Islamist content from being accessed. Some of the posts supporting 'freedom of speech' for far right violent extremist ideology smell of hypocrisy.

I personally don't believe that people go out and commit horrible crimes because of something they saw on the internet. I think they do it because they are bad people, and would do it anyway. I think it's being used as an excuse to control what we see, not because of a supposed threat.

Can you give a verified link to someone that did bad things ONLY because they saw it on the internet?

Speaking as someone that lived when horrible crimes were being committed by OUR side in the Vietnam ( remember My Lai? )and Iraq wars, I think it's a bit rich for governments to now profess that it's awful for us to see what the other side is doing, because it's "bad". 

[simple1]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I personally don't believe that people go out and commit horrible crimes because of something they saw on the internet. I think they do it because they are bad people, and would do it anyway. I think it's being used as an excuse to control what we see, not because of a supposed threat.

Can you give a verified link to someone that did bad things ONLY because they saw it on the internet?

Speaking as someone that lived when horrible crimes were being committed by OUR side in the Vietnam ( remember My Lai? )and Iraq wars, I think it's a bit rich for governments to now profess that it's awful for us to see what the other side is doing, because it's "bad". 

law enforcement / counter terrorism agencies have a differing view to you. I prefer to follow their guidance for these matters.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In NZ the government was elected by a minority and the system they use allows people that were not voted for to be in government. Why should they be allowed to control what I look at when they are just ordinary people like everyone else and  happened to become the government? They don't become wise just because they get to put MP after their name on the stationary.

At the least, they should have a referendum.

This is about australia, not nz.

 

There is already a censorship board that decides what movies are banned and rates movies as suitable for certain ages.

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In NZ the government was elected by a minority and the system they use allows people that were not voted for to be in government. Why should they be allowed to control what I look at when they are just ordinary people like everyone else and  happened to become the government? They don't become wise just because they get to put MP after their name on the stationary.

At the least, they should have a referendum.

Governments are voted in in a democracy, also to protect. Don't like that, vote them out and change the law. 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I personally don't believe that people go out and commit horrible crimes because of something they saw on the internet. I think they do it because they are bad people, and would do it anyway. I think it's being used as an excuse to control what we see, not because of a supposed threat.

Can you give a verified link to someone that did bad things ONLY because they saw it on the internet?

Speaking as someone that lived when horrible crimes were being committed by OUR side in the Vietnam ( remember My Lai? )and Iraq wars, I think it's a bit rich for governments to now profess that it's awful for us to see what the other side is doing, because it's "bad". 

Nobody said 'only', but apparently these videos do help their cause.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 11:57 AM, stevenl said:

Governments are voted in in a democracy, also to protect. Don't like that, vote them out and change the law. 

In an age of coalition governments, that isn't always possible anymore.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 11:57 AM, stevenl said:

Governments are voted in in a democracy, also to protect. Don't like that, vote them out and change the law. 

Nobody said 'only', but apparently these videos do help their cause.

You use the word "apparently" wisely, because far as I know it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt. 

I have no problem with censorship for good reasons, but what I don't like is it being used for political purposes. I doubt it's going to stop at "evil" videos. Who defines "hate speech"?

Edited September 12, 2019 by thaibeachlovers