Should the New Zealand Live Stream of Massacre be Censored?

[Banquet_Bear]

@HurricaneDitka

I don’t think HE knows this. Here’s what I’ve learned about the dipshit this evening:

There are two separate Twitter accounts: one for John Edwards, bloke on the street, sharing his private musing about the world (@JCE_PC), and a separate “official” one for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (@NZPrivacy). Maybe if he’d just stuck to offering his private opinion about Facebook on his private Twitter account or his radio interview, you’d have a point.

…John Edwards is the Commissioner, he has a staff and people responsible for posting on social media. Of course there are two separate accounts. If you listen to the interview and compare it to the Herald article you will note that the quote from the commissioner has been deceptively snipped: omitting the “I think” from the start of the sentence making the sentence read less like it was (his opinion) and more like a demand. Its obvious listening to the interview (with the wonderful Kim Hill, the best interviewer in the country) that he hasn’t issued a demand to facebook at all. The official twitter account simply paraphrased the deceptive Herald quote: that this hasn’t been corrected is most probably down to the fact that with only one like and one retweet nobody is actually actively following the account.

But he didn’t do that. Just take a look at his official account’s tweets over the last couple of days:

If that’s not enough to dispel your routine about him just being some private bloke on the street sharing his private opinion about things, here is the official Facebook (ironically) page of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Scroll down a couple of posts there and you’ll see things like “Privacy Commissioner urges crackdown on harmful livestreams” and “Facebook and YouTube have yet to give any indication that they will suspend live-streaming until their systems can better ensure that the videos uploaded respect decency and censorship laws.” **Why the fuck are they posting things “outside his official remit” on the official Facebook page for his office?
**

…this might come as a fucking surprise to you: but

**New Zealand is not a tyrannical shithole.

We have freedom of speech here.

He is allowed to express his opinion.
**

Why the fuck shouldn’t he express his opinion? That’s exactly what you demand is it not? Do you want us to censor him? Do you think we are a dictatorship?

Not a single one of your cites show any approach to Facebook making official demands of Facebook for customer names. Not a single one. You’ve gotten this completely wrong.

But here’s the thing. There are valid privacy concerns around livestreaming and that is why they are addressing it on the official page. He’s complained about this before: its not a new issue. His job is to discuss those concerns. I’m not worried about that at all. The Facebook posts about livestreaming are entirely within the scope of the office, are a completely different issue to the one you were complaining about, and it is entirely appropriate for them to be posting about it.

But wait, there’s still more. It seems that this particular dipshit has had a bee in his bonnett about Facebook for quite a while now. A year ago, from the Guardian:

Get that? He’s already been issuing “statutory demands” and threatening Facebook with legal action from his office, the one in which he acts as part of the New Zealand government.

From the Spinoff article:

@The Spinoff

Until recently. A complaint to my office has put that question front and centre. **Every New Zealander has the right to find out what information an agency holds about them. **It is a right of constitutional significance, and even this week’s Dotcom case noted that the right of individuals to access, challenge and to correct personal data is generally regarded as “perhaps the most important privacy protection safeguard” (Dotcom v Crown Law 2018 [2018] NZHRRT 7 para 69).

Facebook failed to meet its obligations under the Privacy Act, and when given a statutory demand from my office to produce the information at issue so that I could discharge my statutory duty to the requester to review it, Facebook initially refused to provide it, and then asserted that Facebook was not subject to the New Zealand Privacy Act, and was therefore under no obligation to provide it.

NZ Privacy Commissioner: Why I deleted Facebook

Do you not understand the distinction? Under New Zealand law people have the right to know what information an agency holds on them. People were requesting that information from Facebook: Facebook were refusing to provide that information. So he issued a statutory demand. That is entirely within his remit. That’s his job. If Facebook has information about me I should have a right to know what that information is.

You simply don’t understand the role of the Privacy Commissioner. The role of the office is “to develop and promote a culture in which personal information is protected and respected.” Issuing demands for Facebook user names is completely outside of the remit for the office, but issuing demands on behalf of Facebook User who want to know what information Facebook has on them is in their remit.

Facebook hasn’t refused those demands because no demands haven’t been made. You’ve simply got it wrong.

And they’ve got posts about that on the official New Zealand Office of the Privacy Commissioner website - Privacy Commissioner: Facebook must comply with NZ Privacy Act:

Yep. All entirely appropriate as well.

That’s an awful lot of official resources for something that’s supposedly “entirely outside of the Office of the Privacy Commission’s remit”.

It would help if you would stop randomly googling stuff in an effort to try and prove me wrong and instead you put that effort into understanding exactly what is going on here.

[GreenWyvern]

A word to the wise:

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” — Proverbs 26:4

[Spoons]

@Banquet_Bear

…this might come as a fucking surprise to you: but

**New Zealand is not a tyrannical shithole.

We have freedom of speech here.

He is allowed to express his opinion. **

Banquet Bear, welcome to the world we Canadians live in. We Canadians are told by Americans constantly that we are not free at all, because we have hate speech laws, unlike Americans with their (so-called) highly-vaunted First Amendment. But they cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)); nor can they use the First Amendment to incite violence: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Just deal with the Americans’ BS. We do. We have to.

[HurricaneDitka]

The New Zealand government has now criminalized possession or distribution of the shooter’s ‘manifesto’:

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/385399/christchurch-mosque-shootings-manifesto-deemed-objectionable

Does anyone know how portions of the material are treated under NZ law? For example, if someone had one or two pages (or the whole thing except one or two pages)?

[Velocity]

Word has it that Turkish president Erdogan has been running the NZ shooting footage as some kind of…campaigning or rally thing? What?

[Velocity]

@HurricaneDitka

The New Zealand government has now criminalized possession or distribution of the shooter’s ‘manifesto’:

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/385399/christchurch-mosque-shootings-manifesto-deemed-objectionable

Does anyone know how portions of the material are treated under NZ law? For example, if someone had one or two pages (or the whole thing except one or two pages)?

Sounds like Streisand Effect waiting to happen.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Velocity

Sounds like Streisand Effect waiting to happen.

Agreed. This seems like an incredibly counter-productive approach for New Zealand to take.

[Apollyon]

@HurricaneDitka

Agreed. This seems like an incredibly counter-productive approach for New Zealand to take.

Full agreement with you on this.

For one, I think this sort of twisted ignorance needs to be exposed and fought, and for another, as you asked above, how will pages be treated?

I understand, from sources that have read it that there is a considerable amount of recycled material and copypasta.

An example given was ‘Navy Seal’ copypasta, so now if I have a copy of that meme in my possession am I considered to have a page of the banned manifesto, even though the meme predates it? I really don’t appreciate that ambiguity.

I fear however that trying to have a logical discussion on this locally may be currently contraindicated.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Apollyon

… An example given was ‘Navy Seal’ copypasta, so now if I have a copy of that meme in my possession am I considered to have a page of the banned manifesto, even though the meme predates it? I really don’t appreciate that ambiguity. …

This was exactly what I was getting to. If portions of the writings are also considered “objectionable” for purposes of New Zealand law as well, there’s a fair bit of well-known material that’s banned now. The manifesto includes poetry such as “Do not go gentle into that good night” by Dylan Thomas, “The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon” by Rudyard Kipling, and “Invictus” by William Ernest Henley, URLs for various Wikipedia and Facebook pages, quotes from various semi-famous figures (including a Pope!), etc.

And if portions aren’t considered “objectionable”, minor changes to the manifesto could immunize the possessors.

On another note, I found it rather interesting that possession of the shooter’s manifesto can lead to punishments of a decade in prison, but possession of a military-style semi-automatic rifle, such as the style the shooter used in the attack, is only punishable by 3 years in prison:

… After a reasonable period for returns, those who continue to possess these firearms will be in contravention of the law. Anyone in breach of the law will be liable to a $4000 fine or up to three years’ imprisonment. …

That seems backwards. Anyways, I’ll be curious to see if New Zealand’s compliance rates are as dismal as the various blue states that have tried gun bans recently here in the USA.

[Kiwi_Fruit]

@hurricaneditka

on another note, i found it rather interesting that possession of the shooter’s manifesto can lead to punishments of a decade in prison, but possession of a military-style semi-automatic rifle, such as the style the shooter used in the attack, is only punishable by 3 years in prison:

That seems backwards. Anyways, i’ll be curious to see if new zealand’s compliance rates are as dismal as the various blue states that have tried gun bans recently here in the usa.

@NZ DIA

Anybody who knowingly makes or knowingly trades, distributes, or displays an objectionable publication via the internet can receive a maximum of 14 years imprisonment.

So even more if you distribute the video.

Publishing hate speech can cause more damage than simple possession of a firearm.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Kiwi_Fruit

So even more if you distribute the video.

Publishing hate speech can cause more damage than simple possession of a firearm.

Do you have any information about how the NZ government views the publishing of snippets of hate speech?

[Enola_Gay]

@Velocity

Sounds like Streisand Effect waiting to happen.

Is there any way to measure this?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

I’m a little surprised how evidence-light this thread is, even before it was hijacked and turned into “NZ hates your freedom (to be just the absolute worst human being on the planet)”. One person cited the approach of investigators, and they went largely ignored. We have a wealth of evidence on this kind of thing - seeing the shooting may have a chilling effect on normal folk, but in the context of stochaistic terrorism, it’s likely to cause copycats.

How do we stop killers from exploiting social media?

The point is to be as attention-grabbing as possible, to inspire others. This is not news; there is a general consensus within criminology on best practices when dealing with a mass shooter - don’t spread the video or manifesto, report on the victims, if necessary quote and summarize from the killer’s own words.

This is the context in which NZ is banning the video - they’re quite legitimately concerned that it will lead to copycats and contagious violence (yes, that is a thing in sociology). They’re taking this shit seriously - see also: their new ban on assault weapons.

And yes, this does mean that Kellyanne Conway’s advice for everyone to read the manifesto was just about the dumbest, most dangerous take on the issue.

Also, for shits and giggles, a series of quotes from the thread. Make of it what you will.

@kambuckta

Oh goodie, the Dikta show again.

@engineer_comp_geek

Moderator Note

Feel free to express your opinions about what HurricaneDitka or anyone else posts in this forum, but if you want to actually attack the poster and not the posts, please do so in the Pit.

@GreenWyvern

A word to the wise:

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” — Proverbs 26:4

@Asimovian

Moderator NoteDon’t play games with using personal insults against other posters in the thread. It’s still a personal insult.

@HurricaneDitka

Prior to this, I didn’t realize New Zealand was such a tyrannical shithole:

New Zealand man, 22, arrested for allegedly distributing video of mosque shootings

404 post not found

[HeyHomie]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

I’m a little surprised how evidence-light this thread is, even before it was hijacked and turned into “NZ hates your freedom (to be just the absolute worst human being on the planet)”.

I think it’s culture shock. To US Dopers, the thought of the government censoring social media is so far beyond the pale of anything that would ever happen as to be unthinkable. It just wouldn’t happen here. What’s more, the US’ robust freedom of speech protections are considered by 99.9% of Americans to be downright sacrosanct.

Elsewhere in the world, even in the First one, “freedom of speech” means a lot less than it does here. I’m not saying that’s a good thing or a bad thing (that’s a debate for another thread), but it is a thing.

[HurricaneDitka]

@HeyHomie

I think it’s culture shock. To US Dopers, the thought of the government censoring social media is so far beyond the pale of anything that would ever happen as to be unthinkable. It just wouldn’t happen here. What’s more, the US’ robust freedom of speech protections are considered by 99.9% of Americans to be downright sacrosanct.

Elsewhere in the world, even in the First one, “freedom of speech” means a lot less than it does here. I’m not saying that’s a good thing or a bad thing (that’s a debate for another thread), but it is a thing.

It’s not just that the government is censoring it, but how they’re going about it that I find shocking. Their privacy commissioner is lobbying Facebook for usernames so that he can turn them over to the police. The punishment is falling on individual New Zealanders.

It’s one thing, for example, for the government to tell broadcasters that they can’t say certain words on television during certain hours, the punishment for which might be a fine or loss of broadcasting license, and which would fall on a relative handful of broadcasters who one might reasonably expect to be well-acquainted with the rules of their industry. This would be more like arresting and imprisoning anyone who watched the broadcast that included the prohibited language, or at least it seems that way to my American sensibilities.

[HurricaneDitka]

Apparently the New Zealand ISPs were ready to remove the website blocks tonight but the NZ government asked them not to:

New Zealand’s largest internet providers have reversed plans to stop blocking websites which hosted videos of the Christchurch terror attack, after a last-minute intervention by the Government. …

[Enola_Gay]

@HeyHomie

I think it’s culture shock. To US Dopers, the thought of the government censoring social media is so far beyond the pale of anything that would ever happen as to be unthinkable. It just wouldn’t happen here. What’s more, the US’ robust freedom of speech protections are considered by 99.9% of Americans to be downright sacrosanct.

Elsewhere in the world, even in the First one, “freedom of speech” means a lot less than it does here. I’m not saying that’s a good thing or a bad thing (that’s a debate for another thread), but it is a thing.

I would agree, and think there is culture shock on both sides. Mass shootings in America happen all the time, but this was a first for New Zealand.

Question: Has anyone read the manifesto? I have not, but would be interested in what it says.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Enola_Gay

… Question: Has anyone read the manifesto? I have not, but would be interested in what it says.

I read / skimmed most of it. Do you have some specific questions about what it said, or are you just looking for a general summary?

[Velocity]

@HurricaneDitka

It’s not just that the government is censoring it, but how they’re going about it that I find shocking. Their privacy commissioner is lobbying Facebook for usernames so that he can turn them over to the police. The punishment is falling on individual New Zealanders.

Sounds pretty much like China. Just substitute, say, “criticism of CCP or Xi Jinping” with “New Zealand shooter manifesto” but have it still be “authorities asking for social-media usernames for prosecution” and it would be it.

[Enola_Gay]

@HurricaneDitka

I read / skimmed most of it. Do you have some specific questions about what it said, or are you just looking for a general summary?

I’d love to hear a general summary, if you don’t mind. I’m presuming it’s just a bunch of racist bullshit about how brown people are ruining NZ, but 74 pages?? There’s gotta be more to it…