Here is a small bit of context. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/new-zealand-facebook-christchurch-shooting-video-sheryl-sandberg/10915184
You can see halfway down the article where the site Kiwi farms basically told them to go fuck themselves and their response is to request more censorship at the upcoming G20 summit.
Should they stfu and go back to fucking sheep or should we think about the children?
Like the PATRIOT Act in the US, that new gun control legislation was already written before the event happen. Some politician wrote it but knew it wouldn't pass during normal, peaceful times so they put it on a shelf and wait until there's a tragedy they can exploit.
They can get bent. They don't rule the world, they don't rule the internet. And things like the manifesto and the shooting video are important for those who track history, motives, social conditions, etc. Myself, never having been in any situation where there's been a shootout, I found it very educational from how fast people go down to how people react and how shockingly fast it's over.
So I'm not a fan of sharing that video. I think it's the lowest form of human who watches that for fun.. but the only right response to a government threatening harm to people for sharing data is to post it everywhere.
I mean you should hack their systems and set all their pages to have it as a background
Silencing anything is a horrible idea. We know they have the capability to gather information so why are they not using the footage as an opportunity to build a database of individuals to monitor? I don't think the only people watching the footage are deriving joy from the event. There is a valid interest in making sure what is being reported matches the footage of the event. If information is restricted then it can be falsified.
The good government of NZ has decided you've had too much to think. They can go back to their sheep shagging.
Censorship--in addition to its morally objectionable properties--is a bad practical idea and will just embolden and radicalise those who are curious or those who start wondering what the government has to hide. Citizens have a right to information and should not have to trust approved sources for the official version of events. The lack of foresight and historical understanding of the evils of censorship is astounding, and I hope those in countries with "hate speech" and other censorship laws think things through more than one step in the future and understand how banning things that are temporarily uncomfortable is foolish.
I'm very glad to see the phukers here seem to have figured this out.
It should be legal to share. Just because you have a right doesn't mean you should exercise it. I can picket any church in TX with a sign that says Jesus is a Pedo but that does not mean it would be constructive.
Generally I'd allow anything besides revenge porn or pedo porn online with few exceptions. Besides, their trying to censor it only has more interest in the video. it's disrespectful to the victims' families, but so was forcing them to attack the gunman unarmed 'for their safety'. Well cucky politicians, sure wasn't safe when he shot up the place was it.
I think it's a heavy-handed reaction. Let the general public decide if they want it or not and let the sites decide if they want to host it or not. The bigger fuss the government makes, the more likely it is to be demanded.
Make the censorship the story. Stop trying to push the video and talk about the censorship. Doing so will damage the power of the censors. Once the pain of damaged power digs in deep enough the authoritarianism will stop. (Or shift to a different topic. Can't take your eyes off them for a second.)
BTW here is Telstra's "explanation": https://exchange.telstra.com.au/blocking-websites-hosting-footage-christchurch/
We appreciate that it is necessary to ensure free speech is carefully balanced against protecting the community – but with these sites continuing to host disturbing content we feel it is the right thing to do to block them.
This reads like a literal child wrote it.
free speech is carefully balanced against protecting the community
They are not protecting the community. Weakest argument for censorship ever when they can't even point out how what their doing helps anything.
these sites continuing to host
We'll block EVERYTHING on those sites because of one video. It doesn't matter what else of value is on there.
disturbing content
It's a free society; let people decide for themselves what is too much. There is far more graphic and disturbing content shown every day on TV and in movie theatres.
It's absolutely despicable conduct, and grounds for overthrowing their government IMHO. They are using the flimsiest of pretenses to censor the Internet.
As a Kiwi I have never watched the video. Is that good enough, SIS?
The actions of their government really set off some red flags here. Not only are they arresting and sentencing people for possession of a video, but they banned most sites where you can discuss the event freely, like the chans, voat, dissenter and who knows what else. Within 24 hours they had new gun control legislation ready to go, even though NZ has some extremely strict gun control laws already, including it being illegal to use a gun for self defense and a ridiculous permit to get a semi-auto rifle (and the shooter wasn't even a Kiwi). Their immediate reaction makes me wonder what they're not telling the public. Why else would they go to such extremes to shut down discussion of the event?