New Zealand Bans Manifesto

[Amarok]

Making it illegal is a very different issue, indeed,

Yes, really. Since it is now illegal to own this piece of trash, if you are found with it in your possession, you could be fined or jailed or both (as well as having the pamphlet confiscated).  That is a WORLD away from asking people to do something voluntarily.

'Whenever a government says "This you may not read, this you may not see, this you are forbidden to know", the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how noble the motives.' - Heinlein

Oh, silly me. You're right, of course.  Free speech, an open society and freedom of inquiry is what leads to tyrannical societies.  Thanks for the correction.

Boru

Actually it does as a free an open society id perfect for those who want to crush just those ideals. As it allows their propaganda and misinformation to flow freely undermining those very values , and gives them a unbreakable defense to spread it. The book burning does not lead to a tyrannical regime the book burning occurs after they have already won .

---

I see it like this, today's administration denies the voice of the racist. Next administration denies the voice of the secular humanist. 

Besides, I want to know who the wackos are.Let them speak.

To bad your comparing two idea's that aren't remotely the same .

[chimp3]

Yes, really. Since it is now illegal to own this piece of trash, if you are found with it in your possession, you could be fined or jailed or both (as well as having the pamphlet confiscated).  That is a WORLD away from asking people to do something voluntarily.


Oh, silly me. You're right, of course.  Free speech, an open society and freedom of inquiry is what leads to tyrannical societies.  Thanks for the correction.

Boru

Actually it does as a free an open society id perfect for those who want to crush just those ideals. As it allows their propaganda and misinformation to flow freely undermining those very values , and gives them a unbreakable defense to spread it. The book burning does not lead to a tyrannical regime the book burning occurs after they have already won .

---

I see it like this, today's administration denies the voice of the racist. Next administration denies the voice of the secular humanist. 

Besides, I want to know who the wackos are.Let them speak.

To bad your comparing two idea's that aren't remotely the same .

Too bad, I don't know what the hell your writing about.

[Brian37]

I see it like this, today's administration denies the voice of the racist. Next administration denies the voice of the secular humanist. 

Besides, I want to know who the wackos are.Let them speak.

Not a matter of letting the wackos speak or not speak, it is a matter of not letting someone print instructions on how to build pipe bombs.

Again, there is a huge difference between allowing offensive speech, and the completely separate issue of stopping incitement to violence. 

Again, the Nazis are not lacking in representation in the Holocaust Museum. But Mein Kampf was an instruction manual for genocide. 

You can still find the Unibomber's manifesto if you want to read it, but it isn't printed en mass as an advertisement for a Caribbean Cruise.

NZ was not trying to silence dissent in this, they were trying to stop more violence. Just like you don't mass copy instructions on how to make poison.

[chimp3]

I have owned two well thumbed copies of the Anarchist Cook Book. Did not blow anybody up.

[Brian37]

I have owned two well thumbed copies of the Anarchist Cook Book. Did not blow anybody up.

Yea, that is like saying the Bible or Koran are never used to justify violence. Please argue for no rules on guns too, because while guns are also just objects, human's attitudes towards them do lead them to use those objects to do bad things with them.

Again, you are not wrong, but it is not all or nothing. 

It is legal to make movies about fire, it is not legal to shout fire in a theater. Thus society does not mass market the idea that arson is good.

[Amarok]

Actually it does as a free an open society id perfect for those who want to crush just those ideals. As it allows their propaganda and misinformation to flow freely undermining those very values , and gives them a unbreakable defense to spread it. The book burning does not lead to a tyrannical regime the book burning occurs after they have already won .

---

To bad your comparing two idea's that aren't remotely the same .

Too bad, I don't know what the hell your writing about.

Secular humanism is nothing like Racism . Therefore comparing banning one to the other doesn't work . Was just pointing that out .

[arewethereyet]

I see it like this, today's administration denies the voice of the racist. Next administration denies the voice of the secular humanist. 

Besides, I want to know who the wackos are.Let them speak.

Not a matter of letting the wackos speak or not speak, it is a matter of not letting someone print instructions on how to build pipe bombs.

Again, there is a huge difference between allowing offensive speech, and the completely separate issue of stopping incitement to violence. 

Again, the Nazis are not lacking in representation in the Holocaust Museum. But Mein Kampf was an instruction manual for genocide. 

You can still find the Unibomber's manifesto if you want to read it, but it isn't printed en mass as an advertisement for a Caribbean Cruise.

NZ was not trying to silence dissent in this, they were trying to stop more violence. Just like you don't mass copy instructions on how to make poison.

You can watch any of a number of true crime shows and find out what can be used as poison, which are hardest to detect, and if it's a one dose thing or an accumulation over time thing.

Who decides what is to be censored?  What are the guidelines for making that decision?  

Your 'facts' tend to be how you think things should be, not how they are.

[Amarok]

I have owned two well thumbed copies of the Anarchist Cook Book. Did not blow anybody up.

You not having blown anyone up says nothing about all the people who have

---

Not a matter of letting the wackos speak or not speak, it is a matter of not letting someone print instructions on how to build pipe bombs.

Again, there is a huge difference between allowing offensive speech, and the completely separate issue of stopping incitement to violence. 

Again, the Nazis are not lacking in representation in the Holocaust Museum. But Mein Kampf was an instruction manual for genocide. 

You can still find the Unibomber's manifesto if you want to read it, but it isn't printed en mass as an advertisement for a Caribbean Cruise.

NZ was not trying to silence dissent in this, they were trying to stop more violence. Just like you don't mass copy instructions on how to make poison.

You can watch any of a number of true crime shows and find out what can be used as poison, which are hardest to detect, and if it's a one dose thing or an accumulation over time thing.

Who decides what is to be censored?  What are the guidelines for making that decision?  

Your 'facts' tend to be how you think things should be, not how they are.

1.Accept true crimes shows aren't advocating murder.

2. I think spreading lies and misinformation and intentionally giving people instruction on how to commit terror in the name of an ideology of violence is a pretty good starting point .

3. Doesn't generally start out with the way we believe things should be .

[Brian37]

Not a matter of letting the wackos speak or not speak, it is a matter of not letting someone print instructions on how to build pipe bombs.

Again, there is a huge difference between allowing offensive speech, and the completely separate issue of stopping incitement to violence. 

Again, the Nazis are not lacking in representation in the Holocaust Museum. But Mein Kampf was an instruction manual for genocide. 

You can still find the Unibomber's manifesto if you want to read it, but it isn't printed en mass as an advertisement for a Caribbean Cruise.

NZ was not trying to silence dissent in this, they were trying to stop more violence. Just like you don't mass copy instructions on how to make poison.

You can watch any of a number of true crime shows and find out what can be used as poison, which are hardest to detect, and if it's a one dose thing or an accumulation over time thing.

Who decides what is to be censored?  What are the guidelines for making that decision?  

Your 'facts' tend to be how you think things should be, not how they are.

Huge difference between mere entertainment and selling the advocating violence in a serious manor beyond entertainment.

Huge difference between expressing real history, IE "The Holocaust Museum" and putting out deliberate propaganda like Mein Kampf which has the express intent to marginalize, dehumanize and advocate for the elimination of your fellow human being.

Today we keep Mein Kampf as a reminder of what not to do, but when it was written, it should have been back then, responded to with the same scorn today we rightfully would aim at those who lynched blacks and used politics and law to do so.

But you are right, "Who gets to decide" is a hard issue. 

I would only say there are points in history where it is not as ambiguous and those with empathy and compassion step in.

Imagine if there were more sane than desperate hungry people in Germany when Hitler wrote that vile book, if those people told him to fuck off and refused to print it?

[chimp3]

Too bad, I don't know what the hell your writing about.

Secular humanism is nothing like Racism . Therefore comparing banning one to the other doesn't work . Was just pointing that out .

Was not comparing the two. Was comparing the nature of people in power. The pendulum swings you know. Sauce for the goose?