New Zealand Bans Manifesto

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is wrong, wrong, WRONG.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic...d=12215573

Chief censor David Shanks confirmed the move on Saturday, urging anyone who had copies of it to destroy them.

Ok, because this material is objectionable, it is now unlawful to have it in your possession.

Most people reading the publication will not be harmed by it, the statement said.

"Most New Zealanders who have read this will simply find it repellent. But most New Zealanders are not the target audience. It is aimed at a small group who may be receptive to its hateful, racist and violent ideology, and who may be inspired to follow the example set by its apparent author."

That's REALLY not the government's place to decide.

'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

Boru

[downbeatplumb]

This is wrong, wrong, WRONG.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic...d=12215573

Chief censor David Shanks confirmed the move on Saturday, urging anyone who had copies of it to destroy them.

Ok, because this material is objectionable, it is now unlawful to have it in your possession.

Most people reading the publication will not be harmed by it, the statement said.

"Most New Zealanders who have read this will simply find it repellent. But most New Zealanders are not the target audience. It is aimed at a small group who may be receptive to its hateful, racist and violent ideology, and who may be inspired to follow the example set by its apparent author."

That's REALLY not the government's place to decide.

'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

Boru

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.

[Little lunch]

I'm glad you said that, BSB4, I totally agree.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is wrong, wrong, WRONG.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic...d=12215573


Ok, because this material is objectionable, it is now unlawful to have it in your possession.


That's REALLY not the government's place to decide.

'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

Boru

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.

Agree to disagree.  There is NO valid reason for censorship, ever. People who are going to shoot up mosques (or churches or schools or synagogues) are going to do so irrespective of this manifesto.  What's next - censor the internet?  Pre-censor books before publication?

Boru

[WinterHold]

Copy-cats are an expected consequence of the Christchurch massacre, you can consider the Manifesto of the shooter to be their standard; too.

But the problem is that the Right has other sources for its extremism and terrorism; many attacks against Muslims took place before this one without the need of this specific Manifesto: point is the terrorist didn't say anything new; his ideas are old and the Right wing was repeating them since years and years.

The manifesto should remain; so we can see and read through the mentality of xenophobic terrorists. Imagine a kid having his dad shot and killed in the mosque because the terrorist wanted to become a Crusader knight. The effect of that will be strong, or an NZ woman seeing her country ruined because the "glories of the past" must return.

It shouldn't be banned. It should be studied in the department of psychological fuckups.

[Yonadav]

This is wrong, wrong, WRONG.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic...d=12215573

Chief censor David Shanks confirmed the move on Saturday, urging anyone who had copies of it to destroy them.

Ok, because this material is objectionable, it is now unlawful to have it in your possession.

Most people reading the publication will not be harmed by it, the statement said.

"Most New Zealanders who have read this will simply find it repellent. But most New Zealanders are not the target audience. It is aimed at a small group who may be receptive to its hateful, racist and violent ideology, and who may be inspired to follow the example set by its apparent author."

That's REALLY not the government's place to decide.

'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

Boru

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Incitements to violence aren't protected speech according to our laws, idk what the status of that would be for NZ.

[epronovost]

Logically the publication and distribution of this manifesto should be restricted and tightly controled. You don't want this sort of thing circulating and making rounds on the internet to avoid copy-cats, but also and especially the radicalisation of a fringe of the population. The ideology of this man are liberticide and it doesn't take a lot of supporter of such ideology to stiffle the rights and freedom of already fragile minorities. Of course the simple possession of the manifesto shouldn't be criminalised and a commented version by historians, sociologists and or psychologists could and probably should be distributed in colleges and to an adult public. Basically, follow the same rules applied to Mein Kampf in tolerant countries.

[Brian37]

This is wrong, wrong, WRONG.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic...d=12215573

Chief censor David Shanks confirmed the move on Saturday, urging anyone who had copies of it to destroy them.

Ok, because this material is objectionable, it is now unlawful to have it in your possession.

Most people reading the publication will not be harmed by it, the statement said.

"Most New Zealanders who have read this will simply find it repellent. But most New Zealanders are not the target audience. It is aimed at a small group who may be receptive to its hateful, racist and violent ideology, and who may be inspired to follow the example set by its apparent author."

That's REALLY not the government's place to decide.

'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

Boru

This gets a "depends" from me.

You don't keep "Mien Kampf" because you advocate that vile crap, you keep it as a reminder as to what not to do to your fellow human beings. 

But if someone is keeping it because they believe it, that gets into the realm of advocating violence to promote hate and bigotry. And that should never be protected speech.

I think that is the intent of NZ. Not to silence free speech, but to prevent advocating violence.

Even in America, we've had court cases that held the KKK responsible for acts of violence and people were arrested and or successfully sued for advocating violence.

I don't think the intent is to silence free speech. 

I do think it belongs in history, for the same reason Nazis are displayed in the Holocaust Museum. But no, it should not be widely promoted as a valid form of protest or dissent.

Same with Civil War Statues of the South. They do not belong on public property, they belong in museums of what not to do to your fellow human being. 

Even today in Germany, and I think rightfully so, it is illegal to promote holocaust denial.

Some speech is simply dangerous rhetoric that goes beyond mere offending and dissent. "Who gets to decide" what that is, is a valid subject. All I am saying is I do not think that is NZ's intent.

[Duty]

Banned "books" usually acquire a status of "infamous charismatic intrigue and emphasis" which ends up giving them more views/reads/weight than ever. Basically a counterproductive move IMO and also banning "books" is a nonono, agree with BSB4.