# Mass shootings at mosques in New Zealand **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 15, 2019, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169 "2019-03-15T04:15:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/241 "2019-03-19T04:00:38Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …from Jacinda’s speech this afternoon: > > [https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/19-03-2019/we-cannot-know-your-grief-but-we-can-walk-with-you-at-every-stage/](https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/19-03-2019/we-cannot-know-your-grief-but-we-can-walk-with-you-at-every-stage/) > > (NB: Large extract in compliance with [Section 59 of the NZ Copyright Act.](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345993.html)) Anybody speak Maori ? What does tatau tatau mean ? I thought tatau meant tattoo ? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/242 "2019-03-19T04:19:49Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Anybody speak Maori ? What does tatau tatau mean ? I thought tatau meant tattoo ? …to my eternal shame I’m not fluent in either Maori or Samoan, despite my mum being Maori and my dad being Samoan. My understanding is that in this context it means “all of us.” You can hear it here, in a very famous Maori folk song, with translation: Its also a word in Samoan, with a more complicated meaning, that includes tattoo. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/243 "2019-03-19T04:32:59Z")
19 minutes. This board is awesome. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/244 "2019-03-19T04:38:23Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Anybody speak Maori ? What does tatau tatau mean ? I thought tatau meant tattoo ? I _think_, in context, that it’s an abbreviated restatement in Maori of the “We are one, they are us” idea. The Maori phrase “Tūtira mai ngā iwi, tātau, tātau” appears to mean to “come together as one”. (Non-Maori speaker… so YMMV.) ETA: D’oh, didn’t follow the Youtube link first. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/245 "2019-03-19T05:14:18Z")
In the [Mass shooting in at least one mosque, Christchurch NZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=872456) thread in MPSIMS, after [post 64](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21540207&postcount=64) and [post 65](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21540325&postcount=65), **Loach** [moderated thus](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21540365&postcount=66): > [@](#): > > Moderating: > > Any arguments about killing the terrorist, the death penalty, how abhorrent you find another posters views… all need to go into the Pit thread and not here. So, here it is. My post 64 included the following: > [@](#): > > Your post is disturbing on a number of levels. First, the state already knows (a) how much incarceration costs and (b) how much capital punishment, along with its attendant expenditures, costs. Takeca wild guess at whuch one is more expensive. Next, the state is responsible for the safety of all its prisoners, even those you personally want to see die. Finally, he’s still human, as broken as he is, as horrible as he is. If it takes convincing oneself he’s “just an animal” to consider a particular outcome “justice”, that should indicate if that outcome is actually just. Finally, the police in New Zealand do not have a mandate to kill those they feel like killing; they, like other police forces in other civilized societies, are required to follow the law. I’d rather they do that than be similar to the killer we’re discussing at the moment. That was in response to **Gray Ghost** ’s [post 61](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21540062&postcount=61) in that thread. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/246 "2019-03-19T08:52:48Z")
I’ve snipped the majority of your post **asahi,** but you raise good points, and eloquently state your position. I accept that the issues you raise are potential downsides and risks of a permissive free speech position. I’d never claim that it was anything other than painful, difficult and messy. I’m just not convinced that those downsides outweigh the benefits. Legitimise the ability to shut people up for the ideas they hold and neither you nor I can know where that leads. The UN were not a million miles away from a resolution on the d[efamation of religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations) not so very long ago and there is no reason why it won’t be attempted again. We are both liberal people I’m sure, we want equality, harmony and peace. In the current climate it is trivially easy for us to agree that far-right propaganda could be suppressed with a net reduction in the hate expressed. That’s very easy. And we can’t imagine how such a process could ever go wrong but the lawmakers of today are not the lawmakers of tomorrow and it is not a issue that exists in the realms of the abstract. (see the UN activities above) What would Donald Trump have done had he had free reign to censor speech and ideas? What does Putin do now regarding criticism of the state? What did Islamic theocracies want to happen in the wake of the Danish cartoon incident? You have to ask yourself what you would think of restrictions on what _you_ want to say and you can’t comfort yourself with the thought that you have no ideas that could possibly be worth censoring. If you have any important thoughts at all (and you do) then you have thoughts that are dangerous to someone and you’d better hope that they don’t take a shine to your restrictions on free speech. Free speech exists as a protection for the weak more than as an enabler for the strong. it helps more than it harms and we wouldn’t even be in the luxurious position of pondering and complaining about its misuse if we didn’t have it in the first place. I’ll respond to this point particularly. > [@asahi](#): > > It’s no coincidence that those who have this great philosophical admiration for the absolutist view of free speech are generally themselves white. It’s easy to be favor a philosophical view when you’re not the ones dealing with the consequences. And it is also a perfectly natural reaction to want to shut up those who offend you or hate you in the short term and disregard the long term implications. Also, I have been a target of terrorism. Not a general threat such as all British people were under during the IRA bombing campaigns or Islamist extremist attacks but a specific threat, checking under my car sort of threat. I still supported the right of free speech for those who would harm me then and I still do now. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/247 "2019-03-19T10:45:08Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > The accused has now fired his first lawyer and is insisting on representing himself. According to the fired lawyer, he seems more than able to understand proceedings and able act on his own behalf. I always think that sort are looking to use the court proceedings as a platform for their cause. Which, to my mind, is a good reason not to allow video/sound from the proceedings to be allowed. Text reporting fine, and of course there will be an official record in the court records, but we don’t have to help this asshat out with free access to mass media. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I think past a certain point we hit diminishing returns on freedom of speech. We all agree that slander and libel should be actionable, right? Why is it okay to stop people from lying about other individuals, and not okay to stop people from maliciously lying about history to downplay atrocities and encourage their repetition? (Why yes, we do have a pretty good idea of why people would deny the holocaust, and “honest engagement with ideas” ain’t it.) Rights are not unlimited. Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. You’re not allowed to shout words in a crowd that will cause a stampeded or riot and thereby endanger people. Direct death threats to another human being are actionable. As a start, I think we can argue for a restriction on free speech that advocates the elimination (i.e. death and extinction) of entire ethnic groups or religions, or advocates the subjugation of large categories of people, and the denial of historical instances of attempts to do just that because history shows that such attitudes are dangerous to other people. Now, just what penalties should be for various levels of such speech, and for repeat offenses, can be debated. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I’ll go out on a limb and say that it shouldn’t be banned, even Germany haven’t done that, (I believe they have some experience of how that pans out). > > Do you think it should be banned? I don’t think books like _Mein Kampf_ should be banned, but I don’t think people should be encouraged to read them, either. They should be available for research purposes, not on the bestseller rack at the local store. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/248 "2019-03-19T10:50:14Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Free speech exists as a protection for the weak more than as an enabler for the strong. That’s a crock of shit. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/249 "2019-03-19T11:24:03Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > That’s a fair point. I’ll have to mull that one. While you’re at it, consider how you’ve contributed to the kind of propaganda I describe in post 200, how multiple people explicitly called you out on doing so, and consider whether your presence in this thread isn’t a gigantic fucking slap in the face, you expired jar of cheap mayonnaise. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Legitimise the ability to shut people up for the ideas they hold and neither you nor I can know where that leads. I can tell you from experience that it doesn’t “lead” places in the way you think it does. Most european democracies have laws against holocaust denial; there has been no mission creep on these laws and people have not taken them as an excuse to pass further speech-limiting laws. Even in the case of anti-speech laws that we can all agree are pretty awful, like anti-blasphemy laws in Ireland or Canada, we have not seen similar mission creep - those laws are just bad all on their own. They don’t lead to further infringement. The lesson from recent history is simply not what you want to make it out to be. You talk about Putin - did his crackdown on journalism, protest, etc. stem from a gradual worsening of laws that infringed on free speech, or are they just things he did because he was an autocratic dictator and nobody would stop him? The reality is that nobody advocates unfettered free speech. [Even Hitchens supported and made use of libel/slander laws](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4263211/Hitchens-in-libel-threat-to-Kissinger.html). Free speech is like bodily autonomy - unquestionably an important right to uphold and protect, but if I swing my fist into your face, _we’re going to have a problem_. The debate on “should we limit speech of type X” is not trivially resolved by shouting “Free speech!” louder. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/250 "2019-03-19T12:09:15Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I don’t think books like _Mein Kampf_ should be banned, but I don’t think people should be encouraged to read them, either. They should be available for research purposes, not on the bestseller rack at the local store. Why “for research purposes”? and are you able to judge what is a genuine area of academic research and what is being done purely for personal interest? and why would that matter anyway? Would you trust me to decide what books you, personally, should and shouldn’t have free access to? I have great misgivings about the problematic writings in various other political and religious works. Happy to restrict those to research purposes only? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/251 "2019-03-19T12:20:35Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I can tell you from experience that it doesn’t “lead” places in the way you think it does. Most european democracies have laws against holocaust denial; there has been no mission creep on these laws and people have not taken them as an excuse to pass further speech-limiting laws. Even in the case of anti-speech laws that we can all agree are pretty awful, like anti-blasphemy laws in Ireland or Canada, we have not seen similar mission creep - those laws are just bad all on their own. They don’t lead to further infringement. The lesson from recent history is simply not what you want to make it out to be. You talk about Putin - did his crackdown on journalism, protest, etc. stem from a gradual worsening of laws that infringed on free speech, or are they just things he did because he was an autocratic dictator and nobody would stop him? Exactly - good post. The idea that taking away extreme speech leads to abuses of power is largely myth. If you look at the history of sedition laws, they come from a place in which authoritarianism has already been accepted to some degree. Restrictions against extremist speech don’t usually lead to a rise in authoritarianism; rather, it’s the reverse that usually occurs. Authoritarianism motivates those in power to restrict criticism, which leads to things like sedition laws or ‘anti-terrorism’ laws. Sure, things can go too far, but the imperative is to challenge ideas that foster authoritarianism more broadly. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/252 "2019-03-19T12:46:16Z")
You can also look at it from an utilitarian point of view : what is the societal value of allowing or defending the spread of false information ? Not morally reprehensible ideas or sacrilegious ideas or ideas I don’t like (that’s an entirely different kettle of fish), nor fiction or parody clearly or implicitly labelled as such, but the spread of information that is factually, demonstrably incorrect and has been conclusively proven to be incorrect. Slander and libel is spreading damaging lies about people. Holocaust denial is spreading damaging lies about history. What is gained there ? Why should \*that \*be protected ? Go one further, and you have the thorny issue of fake news. Not Fake News in the Trumpist sense of the word, that is to say “anything I don’t like” or “spin that looks bad for me”, but hoaxes. Things that are not true, events that did not happen but are purported to be, either out of ignorance or malevolence or plain not caring whether they’re true or false. Dancing Arabs on 9/11 for example. Or the Bowling Green Massacre. Or, to get away from politics, false advertising (which, to my knowledge, is also a form of speech that, even in that hallowed bastion of free speech that the US purports to be, is unlawful). To my mind, these kinds of speech are problematic because they corrode the fabric of ALL speech, not to mention waste everybody’s time. And the laissez-faire, libertarian argument of “oh but the marketplace of ideas and critical thinking and making one’s own research” demonstrably does NOT work, because while you and I and every other brainiac out there is naturally entirely immune to such false information (yes, that is sarcasm) there are plenty of subpar brains who ARE swayed by them. And those people vote at the very least. It can of course go even further - Pizzagate might very likely have (and still might) cost innocent people their lives. Antivaxxers are now a public health menace even to you or me or every other brainiac out there - not out of malice or hatred for us or their children, just because a kernel of dangerous assholes spread convincing lies to a passel of well-meaning albeit terminally uncritical people. And then there’s the climate change denial… So why not collectively try and save ourselves by actively, officially stating that things that are demonstrably not true are, in point of fact, not true and that people who deliberately try and say that they are regardless should be discouraged from doing so in some way ? Freedom of opinion is contingent on freedom of speaking said opinions, but what’s the value of an opinion that is based on false facts ? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/253 "2019-03-19T12:50:28Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I can tell you from experience that it doesn’t “lead” places in the way you think it does. Most european democracies have laws against holocaust denial; there has been no mission creep on these laws and people have not taken them as an excuse to pass further speech-limiting laws. You mean it hasn’t lead there yet. And let’s both hope that you are right and I’m wrong. BTW, France did criminalise denial of of the Armenian Genocide but repealed it. > [@](#): > > Even in the case of anti-speech laws that we can all agree are pretty awful, like anti-blasphemy laws in Ireland or Canada, we have not seen similar mission creep - those laws are just bad all on their own. We certainly did see an attempt at mission creep with the proposed resolution in UN. it is only fought off by upholding the concept of free speech and don’t expect it to go away anytime soon. You say “pretty awful”. I’m not convinced that anti-blasphemy laws are any different to holocaust-denial laws and nor might a ideologically-motivated executive. > [@](#): > > They don’t lead to further infringement. The lesson from recent history is simply not what you want to make it out to be I’m not sure concentrating on recent history tells us too much at all about where this leads. I certainly don’t think there is a single “lesson” that tells us how much suppression is too much. We’ve had centuries of free speech restrictions on ideas and opinions and only a fleeting glimpse of what it looks like when that is relaxed. I’m very wary of taking even a baby step backwards, I think we all should be. > [@](#): > > You talk about Putin - did his crackdown on journalism, protest, etc. stem from a gradual worsening of laws that infringed on free speech, or are they just things he did because he was an autocratic dictator and nobody would stop him?. The suppression of free speech is a tool employed as a means to silence criticism and jail dissenters as the leadership requires. It is a tool employed by despots the world over and to normalise its use by appealing to noble intentions leaves the way open for such as Putin’s egregious abuses. There is a phenomenon in economics where the leap from “completely free” to “paying a nominal amount” is a much bigger hurdle than from “paying a nominal amount” to “paying a lot more” Can we not agree that Russia would benefit from removing the current restrictions on free speech? ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/254 "2019-03-19T13:59:53Z")
Language is broad, nuanced and complex. Your ideas can be distasteful or contrary but your rhetoric should be able to stretch to expressing yourself without straying into hate speech. If you cannot express your views without speaking hate, then it’s not your ideas we object to it’s the hate you want to spread. In civilized nations with hate speech laws, usually the hate speaker gets a first pass on what they’ve said. The national dialogue now shifts to the veracity of the remarks. If it appears that it is inaccurate and designed to promote hate, it will be nationally reported exactly why it is grossly inaccurate and that person is warned to not be repeating it. (I believe this is so much more valuable to the citizens than just republication and encouragement for more and more outrageous, over the line sound bites.) Now the speaker can, of course, continue on with their viewpoint, but the spreading of known and demonstrated falsehoods, WILL be considered hate speech. They will have to use better language, not lies and misrepresentations. Or you can watch your nation going off the rail while a guy is holding weekly rallies to spread hateful lies and gross misrepresentations, fanning intolerance and empowering white supremists etc, etc. Till he’s got those crowds frothing with righteous anger. If you can look at America today and not be a little frightened by the power of hate speech I think you’re not paying attention. Every nation has the right to value free speech slightly differently. Full, unfettered, free speech isn’t looking all that attractive these days, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/255 "2019-03-19T14:09:51Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Why “for research purposes”? and are you able to judge what is a genuine area of academic research and what is being done purely for personal interest? and why would that matter anyway? Sorry, perhaps I should have specified that I have no problems with people doing their own personal research for their own gratification, that I do not limit it to professionals. Put a copy of _Mein Kampf_ in the library, and a copy on Project Gutenberg, and I’m sure there will be copies in used bookstores (yes, they still exist) but I don’t see a need to print and publish new copies, advertise or promote it in any way, and certainly don’t see a need for anyone to profit off it. All profits that do arise from it should be donated to a worthy cause like, I dunno, Amnesty International or something. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/256 "2019-03-19T14:16:39Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Sorry, perhaps I should have specified that I have no problems with people doing their own personal research for their own gratification, that I do not limit it to professionals. > > Put a copy of _Mein Kampf_ in the library, and a copy on Project Gutenberg, and I’m sure there will be copies in used bookstores (yes, they still exist) but I don’t see a need to print and publish new copies, advertise or promote it in any way, and certainly don’t see a need for anyone to profit off it. All profits that do arise from it should be donated to a worthy cause like, I dunno, Amnesty International or something. I wouldn’t have a problem with any of that as a general principle, it allows access to anyone and no censorship is in place. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/257 "2019-03-19T14:17:59Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > We certainly did see an attempt at mission creep with the proposed resolution in UN. it is only fought off by upholding the concept of free speech and don’t expect it to go away anytime soon. Is it mission creep, though? Did they bring up things like holocaust denialism as justification? Or is it just an attempt to restrict free speech that is basically completely unrelated? Serious question, it’s not very clear from the wikipedia article. Or is the argument that any law that would infringe on free speech that comes after another law, however unrelated, is somehow “mission creep” on the first law? Because that’s definitely not what I’m talking about and I’d reject that concept outright. > [@](#): > > You say “pretty awful”. I’m not convinced that anti-blasphemy laws are any different to holocaust-denial laws and nor might a ideologically-motivated executive. I’m not touching this paragraph with a 10-foot dildo in the shape of christ on the cross. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure concentrating on recent history tells us too much at all about where this leads. I certainly don’t think there is a single “lesson” that tells us how much suppression is too much. We’ve had centuries of free speech restrictions on ideas and opinions and only a fleeting glimpse of what it looks like when that is relaxed. I’m very wary of taking even a baby step backwards, I think we all should be. So do you oppose libel laws? Do you oppose laws against spreading ISIS propaganda? Do you oppose laws against false advertising? Laws against impersonation, stolen valor, etc.? Every single one of these laws restricts free speech. Every single one of these laws is “a step backwards”, as you might put it. And I don’t think anyone would honestly make the case that these laws aren’t important and valuable. > [@](#): > > The suppression of free speech is a tool employed as a means to silence criticism and jail dissenters as the leadership requires. It is a tool employed by despots the world over and to normalise its use by appealing to noble intentions leaves the way open for such as Putin’s egregious abuses. For some reason the page keeps crashing and taking my responses with me. Why yes, restrictions on free speech can be poorly-crafted and abusable. Again, is there any evidence that well-crafted restrictions like bans on holocaust denial lead in that direction? At all? All available evidence is that it, in fact, does not. That’s just not how a breakdown of free speech rights in democratic society works. > [@](#): > > There is a phenomenon in economics where the leap from “completely free” to “paying a nominal amount” is a much bigger hurdle than from “paying a nominal amount” to “paying a lot more” But we’re already paying a nominal amount. I cannot impersonate you, cannot lie to you about what a product I’m selling can do, and cannot go on the news and accuse you of fucking your dog. All of these restrict my free speech, all of these are utterly uncontroversial. > [@](#): > > Can we not agree that Russia would benefit from removing the current restrictions on free speech? Of course. Nobody disagrees with that. But that’s not just because Russia’s laws infringe on free speech. It’s mostly because they’re _bad laws_, written with the intent of squashing dissent by autocrats. There was no earnest weighing of public interest in allowing vs. disallowing dangerous speech; the goal upfront was to quash dissent. This is what makes them materially different from laws like those banning holocaust denial. It’s not enough to just appeal to a reduction of free speech. We have plenty of laws that do that. You have to explain why that specific reduction isn’t worth the tradeoff we receive. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/258 "2019-03-19T17:57:49Z")
A lot of this argument over free speech is missing the point. It doesn’t matter if there’s no “slippery slope”. Banning the expression of certain ideas is already bad in and of itself, without it being relevant whether there will be any slippage down a slope. The Hitchens video NB linked is spot on regarding this point; but for those disinclined to watch a twenty minute video, I’ll again quote the key sentences from the John Stuart Mill quote I referenced upthread: > [@](#): > > [T]he peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. So the main point is not the rights of the person or people expressing the offending opinion. Neither is it primarily about a slippery slope that might lead to “good” opinions being suppressed. It is simply the “clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” Here’s more Mill, fleshing out this notion: > [@](#): > > He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. And: > [@](#): > > We often hear the teachers of all creeds lamenting the difficulty of keeping up in the minds of believers a lively apprehension of the truth which they nominally recognise, so that it may penetrate the feelings, and acquire a real mastery over the conduct. No such difficulty is complained of while the creed is still fighting for its existence: even the weaker combatants then know and feel what they are fighting for, and the difference between it and other doctrines…But when it has come to be an hereditary creed, and to be received passively, not actively—when the mind is no longer compelled, in the same degree as at first, to exercise its vital powers on the questions which its belief presents to it, there is a progressive tendency to forget all of the belief except the formularies, or to give it a dull and torpid assent, as if accepting it on trust dispensed with the necessity of realizing it in consciousness, or testing it by personal experience; until it almost ceases to connect itself at all with the inner life of the human being. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/259 "2019-03-19T18:09:53Z")
FYI, Canada repealed its blasphemy law last year and no one had been prosecuted under it for 90 years. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169/260 "2019-03-19T18:14:30Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Even someone as profoundly stupid as Slacker has realized that his belief that Muslim’s shouldn’t be allowed into America is in conflict with his belief in “free-speech absolutism”. Well, aren’t you sweet? 😉 In all seriousness, though, this is a good illustration of what I’ve been talking about. BB has talked all kinds of shit to and about me over the years (despite the claim that they had been previously “playing nice” with me). I was not predisposed to expect any wisdom from one of their posts, certainly nothing that would make me reexamine in any significant way any of my beliefs. But no matter how worthless I may have found every single previous contribution from someone I encounter, I’m always open to the possibility, however remote, of finding something valuable in the next thing I read or hear from them. And that is what has happened here: I can’t criticize Australia barring Milo from entry based on his ideology and public statements, while supporting a ban on entry to the U.S. by conservative Muslims (FYI, I never had a problem with welcoming liberal/secular Muslims). So if I have to oppose both or support both, I choose opposition to both bans even if it is painful to do so. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Go one further, and you have the thorny issue of fake news. Not Fake News in the Trumpist sense of the word, that is to say “anything I don’t like” or “spin that looks bad for me”, but hoaxes. Things that are not true, events that did not happen but are purported to be, either out of ignorance or malevolence or plain not caring whether they’re true or false. Dancing Arabs on 9/11 for example. That’s not a good example of what you’re talking about. Pizzagate (which you reference later in the post) would be much better. > **[Northern New Jersey Draws Probers' Eyes](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/18/northern-new-jersey-draws-probers-eyes/40f82ea4-e015-4d6e-a87e-93aa433fafdc/?noredirect=on&postshare=7281448290025183&utm_term=.bcce12a2e8d4)** > [@](#): > > In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river. [In my salad days in the late '90s, I lived in Jersey City–in fact, in the same Journal Square neighborhood where apparently both the original WTC bombers and then the hijackers lived. I never realized until just now that they were my neighbors! :eek: I took the PATH over to the WTC station every weekday for work. I wonder if I ever crossed paths with any of them.] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-shootings-at-mosques-in-new-zealand/831169.md?page=14)