New Zealand Bans Manifesto

[Brian37]

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?

Yes the pendulum does swing, so where do we want as a species for it to swing? Do we want it to swing to more hate and fear, or more protection of the innocent?

[Amarok]

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?

Which would only prove one group of people in power are stupid , And I highly doubt we need to ban racism for the enemies of secular humanism to come up with a reason to censor it .

[chimp3]

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.

In the U.S. it is legal to make movies about killing Indians. It is also legal to make movies sympathizing with Native People. It is legal for Native People to make movies from their own viewpoint. It is legal to make movies criticizing John Wayne. I can make up my own mind without some bureaucrat protecting my fragile egg shell mind.

[Brian37]

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.

In the U.S. it is legal to make movies about killing Indians. It is also legal to make movies sympathizing with Native People. It is legal for Native People to make movies from their own viewpoint. It is legal to make movies criticizing John Wayne. I can make up my own mind without some bureaucrat protecting my fragile egg shell mind.

Again, my argument is not "Who gets to decide" and again, you are not wrong. 

But speech is not a free for all anymore than driving a car is. You cant legally speed or drive on the wrong side of the road.

If speech were absolute, there would be no ability to sue others for slander or liable. And "Whites Only" sings for buses and bathrooms would still be legal.

When speech goes beyond merely offending, and gets to the point where it incites violence, it is no longer protected speech.

Legal,  and mind you, I am only using this for example.

Legal, "You are a dick."

Not legal, "I think everyone should kill you."

NZ is viewing that manifesto as a blueprint to murder Muslims. Just like Mein Kampf was a blueprint to scapegoat Jews.

[chimp3]

In the U.S. it is legal to make movies about killing Indians. It is also legal to make movies sympathizing with Native People. It is legal for Native People to make movies from their own viewpoint. It is legal to make movies criticizing John Wayne. I can make up my own mind without some bureaucrat protecting my fragile egg shell mind.

Again, my argument is not "Who gets to decide" and again, you are not wrong. 

But speech is not a free for all anymore than driving a car is. You cant legally speed or drive on the wrong side of the road.

If speech were absolute, there would be no ability to sue others for slander or liable.

When speech goes beyond merely offending, and gets to the point where it incites violence, it is no longer protected speech.

Legal,  and mind you, I am only using this for example.

Legal, "You are a dick."

Not legal, "I think everyone should kill you."

NZ is viewing that manifesto as a blueprint to murder Muslims. Just like Mein Kampf was a blueprint to scapegoat Jews.

I think "Everyone should kill you!" is appropriate at times.

[arewethereyet]

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?

True crime, you nitwit.  Not fictional crime shows.

And advocating or not doesn't make the information more or less valid when it comes to efficacy.

You don't think that someone who wants to poison another person can't learn from a source that isn't advocating such behavior but it rather relaying a series of events.

[Brian37]

Again, my argument is not "Who gets to decide" and again, you are not wrong. 

But speech is not a free for all anymore than driving a car is. You cant legally speed or drive on the wrong side of the road.

If speech were absolute, there would be no ability to sue others for slander or liable.

When speech goes beyond merely offending, and gets to the point where it incites violence, it is no longer protected speech.

Legal,  and mind you, I am only using this for example.

Legal, "You are a dick."

Not legal, "I think everyone should kill you."

NZ is viewing that manifesto as a blueprint to murder Muslims. Just like Mein Kampf was a blueprint to scapegoat Jews.

I think "Everyone should kill you!" is appropriate at times.

Remind me never to elect you to office.

You still don't get it. Hitler deserved to die, and too bad the coward committed suicide, so in that context I get what you are saying.

But again, everything is case by case. And in the context of that manifesto, and that individual, and what he was selling, NZ was not trying to silence dissent, but prevent violence from spreading.

Now again, that manifesto is on record, it isn't going anywhere, but what NZ does not want, like America does not allow today, is "Whites Only" signs in the real world, even if movies depict that horrible past when it was legal.

Do you think the killer's free speech was violated when he did a live feed of his killing spree and FB eventually yanked it?

[chimp3]

I think "Everyone should kill you!" is appropriate at times.

Remind me never to elect you to office.

You still don't get it. Hitler deserved to die, and too bad the coward committed suicide, so in that context I get what you are saying.

But again, everything is case by case. And in the context of that manifesto, and that individual, and what he was selling, NZ was not trying to silence dissent, but prevent violence from spreading.

Now again, that manifesto is on record, it isn't going anywhere, but what NZ does not want, like America does not allow today, is "Whites Only" signs in the real world, even if movies depict that horrible past when it was legal.

Do you think the killer's free speech was violated when he did a live feed of his killing spree and FB eventually yanked it?

Do I think the killers free speech was violated? What difference does that make? The right to free press is  given to the owners of presses (media outlets). That fuckwad is being charged with murder not outrageous speech. The press owners have the right to determine what content they will print. This is true of Atheist Forums also.

---

Member jokingly states "So, kill me!"

 Other member jokingly responds "Everyone should kill you!"

 Everyone laughs.

Appropriate.

[Brian37]

Speech is regulated too, it is why it is not legal to market Playboy, Penthouse or beer in grade schools.

[chimp3]

Speech is regulated too, it is why it is not legal to market Playboy, Penthouse or beer in grade schools.

Right! That is why we have laws about inciting to riot and conspiracy to commit murder.