Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. The guy REALLY hated immigrants. He talked a lot about “Europeans” (which seems odd for me since he was an Australian guy living in New Zealand). He was upset about terrorist attacks and other crimes committed by immigrants against Europeans. One particular victim (Ebba Akerlund) profoundly affected him. The bulk of it is a weird Q&A format where he poses questions to himself and answers them to lay out his reasoning / thinking / plans. He concludes with some angry messages to various groups (conservatives, christians, antifa, etc) and some general thoughts (he considers himself an “eco-fascist” but is also very adamant that Europeans need higher birth rates). Anyways, I hope that’s helpful, or at least as helpful as something can be when trying to make sense of this.
I’m pretty confident that Thomas, Kipling, et al didn’t just get banned.
Indeed, “could”, and logically should. I’m not sure what if any response I’ll get but I think an enquiry to the censorship team at the Department of Internal Affairs is in order. This could be interesting; I’ve never been part of the green-ink brigade. 
While a few people have voluntarily handed in weapons for destruction I suspect the grace period will endure until the buy-back plan is in place an owners can be compensated.
It’s my understanding it’s in part a list of targets and a how-to guide on terrorist massacres, not just racist rants.
Thank you. Oddly I haven’t been able to find the entire document online (although I haven’t really tried that hard).
If it contains ‘How To’ information, then I can better understand why the government wants to censor it.
I don’t recall much of anything in the way of “how to” information or a list of targets. I remember him briefly explaining why he chose the particular mosques he did, and some discussion about why he settled on firearms. Like I said though, I did get bored and skimmed through parts of it, so it’s certainly possible I missed / forgot about something relevant.
Note that Edwards is lobbying Facebook. There is no mechanism by which he can force them to reveal names or details except maybe a search warrant. Unlikely to get one as the alleged offenders are generally anonymous, meaning it would only be a fishing expedition. I don’t believe the police would want to go down that road.
Also, it’s not the ones that viewed but those that shared he’s after. So not analogous to watching the broadcast of prohibited words.
As a proponent of free speech, do you think that any restrictions should be placed on speech by the government?
I accept some restrictions as reasonable.
As Enola Gay isn’t in New Zealand, the classification and restriction doesn’t apply. Unless you are a resident of this “tyrannical shithole”, knock your socks off reading it if you can find it.
Thanks for the clarification. Is “knock your socks off reading it” an indication that you don’t think it should be censored?
HurricaneDitka, What if the Christchurch shooter was the Christchurch rapist; would New Zealand be a “tyrannical shithole” for controlling the livestream then? You seem quite odious, but are there lines you won’t cross (out of rationale or any American-based cultural norms)? How absolute is your, IMO selectively blind, allegiance to “free speech?” Do victims (many trying to recover in-and-out-of hospitals right now) deserve privacy rights? Does anybody deserve privacy rights? I’m curious.
Moderator Note
(bolding mine)
Personal insults don’t belong in this thread or forum. Don’t do this again.
Mistaken the forum. I’ll be more careful.
Very interesting point. I’m actually rethinking my own position here.
Aside from the manifesto, his weapons and magazines were graffitied with weird references, many including Islam and Turkey/ the Balkans. I understood a few, but most were obscure to me.
There wouldn’t be half a hundred victims, for one.
Seconded. I wonder if he/she’ll get an answer.
A dude BTW.
Thanks for letting me know.
Sorry for disappearing, I was away for the weekend.
I’m ambivalent about censoring this, but I’d normally go with not censoring ideas. If it’s a list of targets, and I was one of them I think I’d want to know, yes?
I do consider the livestream as obscene as child pornography. I don’t like seeing violence get a pass that even mild sexual behaviour doesn’t get. Think of the Superbowl wardrobe malfunction giving everyone the vapours compared with screening of boxing title fights.