New Zealand Bans Manifesto

[Rev. Rye]

I can see why they are doing this. Its to try to stop this bastard getting a following.

I honestly am conflicted on this as I can see the arguments for both sides and agree with both to an extent.

I can see your point. It's not like works that get banned end up getting a lot of attention specifically because they're banned. Especially not when they're related to a far-right viewpoint that has A) been growing in popularity and B) treats literally any criticism of their bullshit as censorship. Besides, it's certainly plausible that a manifesto that's been circulating all over the internet in the past week or so can actually even be effectively banned. It's not like the Streisand Effect is even a thing!

---

In all seriousness, I'd like to point out the Rev. Rye Right/Wrong Ethical Algorithm. It's a long and tricky algorithm for determining how to deal with ethical dilemmas. As long as it can be, I'd like to share the first step, because that's as far as we need to go in this case: First step: "Is this action, as questionable as it is, at least likely to actually achieve the desired result?" If the answer is yes, proceed to step two. If the answer is no, then:

[Amarok]

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

Yes it does as it's a question of intent 

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.

Again intent

---

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.

Once again intent

---

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

Yup and why we ban publications that do the same like the deranged writings of a mad man who incites violence towards minorities .

---

I am pleased to see that this is your take on it. When I saw the title of this thread, I prepared myself to be offended. It is quite frankly unbelievable how frightened formerly liberal democracies are becoming of free speech. Illiberal democracies are springing up everywhere, and formerly liberal democracies are doing horrible slides into illiberal values.  Everyone has become so fucking convinced that everyone else is an idiot, that no one trusts anyone else to read anything that they might disagree with, as if the common folk are too dumb to process information that isn't screened by the state.

This has fuck all to do with any of that . This wasn't just "disagreement " this was writings of a deranged mass murderer advocating for terrorism .

[Equinox25]

This is stupid. Censorship is never good in my opinion. The document I find very interesting as a masters psych student. It can teach us a lot. I think NZ is having too much of a knee jerk reaction. Between this and banning assault rifles are just knee jerks to make it look like they are doing something. Perhaps nations that have fallen victim to ISIS and other jihadist attacks should ban the Koran? No. Censorship is wrong on every level.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If freedom of speech doesn't protect hateful, sexist, racist, violence-advocating bigoted speech, isn't the whole exercise rather pointless?  The whole idea that someone else can tell me which books I can have in my possession is anathema to me.

Boru

[Yonadav]

I think that the pro-censorship crowd is a bigger threat than racists are.

[The Grand Nudger]

If freedom of speech doesn't protect hateful, sexist, racist, violence-advocating bigoted speech, isn't the whole exercise rather pointless?  The whole idea that someone else can tell me which books I can have in my possession is anathema to me.

Boru

It protects the first three, not the fourth, and a wide range of other things that are none of the four.  Free speech not protecting incitement doesn't reduce free speech to pointlessness.

[Yonadav]

If freedom of speech doesn't protect hateful, sexist, racist, violence-advocating bigoted speech, isn't the whole exercise rather pointless?  The whole idea that someone else can tell me which books I can have in my possession is anathema to me.

Boru

It protects the first three, not the fourth, and a wide range of other things that are none of the four.  Free speech not protecting incitement doesn't reduce free speech to pointlessness.

I'm not so sure. I grew up in a time and place where violence was advocated against communists all the time. The only good commie was a dead commie. If a person sincerely believes that there is a coming race war and wants people to prepare for it, I don't see the difference between that and the good dead commie nonsense.

We are very hit and miss with the advocacy for violence. I was appalled by how badly libtards wanted to punch Nick Sandman in the face for having done basically nothing to offend them so badly. Nick Sandman is a minor. Since when did it become acceptable to talk about punching children in the face? But some ridiculous writers felt perfectly free to write about Nick Sandman's punchable face. Our media deliberately spun the image of the Covington children to be such villains that their school was getting terrorist threats.

So tell me, Mr. ItsOKtocensorfreespeech, when can we go arrest the writers who wrote about Nick Sandman's punchable face? They were inciting violence against a child, after all. I'm completely disgusted with them. Should we make it illegal for people to read those articles or to possess them? Censorship is always going to favor some sort of bigotry. It will be OK for these guys to incite violence, but not OK for those guys to incite violence. Censorship is always about a brand of bigotry.

[The Grand Nudger]

You could always find someone to try and make that case, Yon, see if it sticks. Maybe call the ACLU, they have a history of taking things like that up if they think it has merit.

In the meantime, I'll just remind you that incitement isn't protected speech....so no ones advocating the censorship of free speech. Carry on with the grift.

[Yonadav]

You could always find someone to try and make that case, Yon, see if it sticks.  Maybe call the ACLU, they have a history of taking things like that up if they think it has merit.

In the meantime, I'll just remind you that incitement isn't protected speech....so no ones advocating the censorship of free speech.  Carry on with the grift.

Here's a libtard getting arrested for violence. My understanding is that they were actually a bit surprised by their arrest because of how right they thought that they were. I watched it and wondered if it was you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_kUO4HrJjA

[Rev. Rye]

I would like to point out to the pro-censorship-in-this-case crowd that a ban like New Zealand is doing is ultimately doomed to failure. Apart from the fact that it's likely to embolden the far-right dumpster fires they're trying to crack down on, since, in this case, they can cry censorship and actually be right about it for once, the mere fact of banning it brings it the sort of attention they're trying to avoid.

Case in point: International Gorillay. It was a film made in Pakistan in 1990 that eventually was exported to the west, and odds are, I wouldn't know a thing about it if not for one thing: the BBFC (the British equivalent to the MPAA) refused to rate it, which ultimately led to its being banned in the country. Why did they refuse to rate it? Well, the villain of the film was famed author Salman Rushdie. Yes, this film was a direct response to the Satanic Verses controversy, and, since the film was made in a Muslim-majority country that's still embroiled in violence to this day, he's the villain. Bear in mind, at this point, Rushdie was still living in hiding because there was a very good chance some extremist would still kill him. Indeed, the next year, his Japanese translator would be stabbed by a Bangladeshi exchange student in support of the retribution. How did he react to such a film being banned? He pointed out that the whole thing was utterly pointless and cruel, even saying that "''Censorship is usually counterproductive and can actually exacerbate the risks which it seeks to reduce.'' The film would eventually be given an 18 certificate, and would eventually be released. Almost nobody saw it (because even Rushdie, who argued for its release even as it posed a threat to his own life, pointed out that it was total crap, although he did find the scene where he tortured Muslims by reading from Satanic Verses funny), and there's a good chance those who did see it only knew about it because of the controversy with the BBFC. Rushdie would later say: "If that film had been banned, it would have become the hottest video in town: everyone would have seen it". Remember, the whole controversy about "Video Nasties" (where films that were condemned by the likes of Mary Whitehouse ended up getting more free publicity than they would have ever dreamed because of it) was still fresh in the memories of the British people.

And bear in mind, this is in the days before anyone and their mums could torrent a film (any film) online. And dozens of mirrors of that manifesto can easily be found online. And if one falls, two will come back up in its place. And if only one pops up, it'll turn out that the original will still be viewable on the Wayback Machine. So, yeah, the premise that censorship will do any good in cases like this is one I categorically reject.