If content restrictions create a “tyrannical shithole” then you may want to consider moving to Antarctica. Or Mars.
Thanks, but I think I’ll stay right here in America and continue advocating for free speech rights.
By all means. Just don’t try distributing kiddie porn.
Yeah. For now I’d be happy if “it’s okay to be white” didn’t trigger a police investigation.
Yeah I got the same vid game vibe happening, as the dude is just casually walking around the mosque, he would occasionally twist the rifle like your doing an ammo check , and he must have been seeding magazines as he was walking. He would stop occasionally and pick up a fresh one and change out.
I think it was mainly the writing on the rifle that gave the most vid game vibe, like an option in call of duty to reskin it.
What’s wrong with police enforcing city ordinances by searching for those who violate them?
Nothing if they’re enforcing them in a content-neutral manner. Where did your quote come from? It didn’t appear to be in the article I linked.
Happened to stumble upon it looking at the reporting of it in Bangor’s paper.
Getting back on track since we shouldn’t hijack, just curious, is it a coincidence you called New Zealand a shithole and the operator of the website KiwiFarms refused to turn over information to them calling their country a shithole in the process?
You have a funny way of “getting back on track”, but yes, it’s a coincidence. I had never heard of “KiwiFarms” prior to your post here.
That doesn’t make the Trump supporter in question happy.
in reading about it now though, I like the guy’s style:
Nitpick - why is the thread title question and the question in the actual poll, result in the opposite answer?
I’m pretty pro free speech. And I’m not for state censorship and I have little tolerance for social/mob ostracism pressure that results in de-facto censorship. That said, there is something disturbing about gore sites or other forms of graphic violence that can’t be 100% healthy for people’s psyches. In my mind it’s a bit like drugs, I think prohibition is worse than the alternative yet I don’t think it’s necessary to indulge.
Country classifies snuff film as objectionable material; enforces law on distribution of same: tyranny. Presumably you don’t feel the same when it’s the US classifying CP this way, right? :dubious:
Really?
This “style” appeals to you?
If you read the actual email from the NZ Police this is a fairly egregious misrepresentation. They asked only that potential evidence be preserved while they made a formal request through legal channels.
ETA: I do rather agree about the silliness of the email’s footer boilerplate. Usual pointless and daft stuff that the legal department makes people add. :rolleyes:
You “like the guy’s style”? Somehow, I’m not surprised.
Website Kiwi Farms refuses to surrender data linked to accused Christchurch terrorist Brenton Tarrant
Sounds like the guy has great style.
Do you also like Brenton Tarrant’s style? Serious question.
My understanding of snuff films is that it is a pornographic movie culminating in the murder of one of the performers. Using your definition, would the collapse of the World Trade Centers constitute a snuff film?
As I’ve already noted in this thread, the USA has plenty of its own issues with censorship. I’m about as interested in arguing over child porn as I am about arguing over whether I should be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon (i.e. not at all). I am, however, rather interested in New Zealand’s decision to start charging its own citizens for posting / possessing this video, which you called a “snuff film”. Do you feel that definition would apply to any videos wherein someone dies?
As a response to would-be tinpot tyrants, yes.