Banned in New Zealand?

This is our lounge area. Feel free to come in and get acquainted!
User avatar
Hotarubi
Posts: 977
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:12 am
Title: Enchantress
Location: This septic Isle.

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by Hotarubi »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 12:34 pm
Invented by the English. But unfortunately rejected by (most) of them.
Have you spoken to all of them?
Yep, you totally outsmarted me ~ Wildcat.

:ball2:

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 82854
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by Abdul Alhazred »

Hotarubi wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 4:27 pm
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 12:34 pm
Invented by the English. But unfortunately rejected by (most) of them.
Have you spoken to all of them?
Beg pardon. Amended version: Most of those in power.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
The arc of the moral universe bends towards chaos.
People who believe God or History are on their side provide the chaos.

User avatar
ed
Posts: 38150
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by ed »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 5:20 pm
Hotarubi wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 4:27 pm
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 12:34 pm
Invented by the English. But unfortunately rejected by (most) of them.
Have you spoken to all of them?
Beg pardon. Amended version: Most of those in power.
May I interject? Yes, I spoke to all of them. It is as Abdul says.

They also say that they do not need you to "protect them". They find it offensive and they assure me that if you keep it up they will acquaint you with some of their quaint, diverse, pastimes. Like sub-incision.
About that stereo

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 22427
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by Rob Lister »

Ya know, after ed chided me I decided to do a little nationalistic introspection, as it were. Atheist seems to believe that we permit similar restrictions on free speech, but I had a hard time coming up with any. Here's what I came up with-- read in three columns (even though I can't be bothered with BB Tables so do your own mental import) Restriction, reason, penalty.

Can't yell fire in a crowded theater
Causes panic, stampede, injury or death
Not sure about the actual speech but you'd be held liable for the damages

Inciting Riot
Causes riot (duh) with property damage, injury or death
Not sure

Possession of distribution of that certain type of porn whose very name brings evil here to our fora
Obvious, I would think
Imprisonment for too short a time, and lifetime scarlet letter.

Distribution of violent porn, technically obscenity but prosecution is pretty specific these days
Not sure
This is a state law that is rarely implemented. Max Hardcore comes to mind. CA, surprisingly. 'Well Hung' Jury, if you'll excuse the pun.

Public nudity
Offends the common mores; closest thing I can think of to what the Kiwis did
State law, varies, generally a fine, rarely jail, never prison.

Identification of alleged rape victims by media outlets
Embarrassment to the victim
State law but when challenged, it has never passed higher court muster. Ever. The media does it out of courtesy but they have no problem with putting the name of the accused in 50pt font.

Prior Restraint in speech for court cases, warrants, etc (participants only, not the press)
Obstruction of justice.
Federal and state, contempt of court, whack your peepee, cozy jail cell for a few days, yada. I wonder if it has been challenged. If not, it should be. If it passes muster, we should all yell RIOT in a crowded theater.

Okay, I'm tired. Nap#4 time.

User avatar
ed
Posts: 38150
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by ed »

Its more complicated than that. Ill try to respond a bit mire later.

But it should be noted that scotus takes a VERY dim view of any speech restrictions.
About that stereo

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 82854
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by Abdul Alhazred »

"Fire in a crowded theater" is a line from a Supreme Court decision later vacated.

The case wasn't an actual incident of shouting fire in a crowded theater, but something considered analogous. In that case it was distributing anti-war pamphlets. This is no longer US law and was in fact only an anomaly around the First World War.

But since then "fire in a crowded theater" is anything the particular apologist doing the talking wishes to suppress.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
The arc of the moral universe bends towards chaos.
People who believe God or History are on their side provide the chaos.

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 82854
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by Abdul Alhazred »

Furthermore, while Tarrant very likely was also a racist, his motive for the mass murder was revenge for Kosovo. That is stuff done by Muslims who are also white folks and furthermore enabled by the foreign policy of the United States.

Which is to say the whole narrative of a pro-American white nationalist bent on killing brown people is total bullshit. But there is no way for New Zealanders to know this because they do not have access to his dreary manifesto.

It is the censorship that allows stupid lies to flourish.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
The arc of the moral universe bends towards chaos.
People who believe God or History are on their side provide the chaos.

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 22427
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by Rob Lister »

Hey bubbo, stay on [my] topic!
ed wrote:Its more complicated than that. Ill try to respond a bit mire later.
ed: everything is always *more* complicated than every that that is. I'm just writing out loud. Take your time. Collect your thoughts. Do a little googling. Your own introspection. Fuck the old lady. Then your wife. Respond when you're ready

User avatar
ed
Posts: 38150
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by ed »

You are so understanding. That is why we all love you.
About that stereo

User avatar
The Atheist
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:22 pm
Location: Auckland

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by The Atheist »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 12:36 pm
You are an apologist for the biggest slave empire in the history of the world.
You are drawing so many long bows so badly I think I've arrived at a Robin Hood convention for cerebral palsy sufferers.

Coming from an American, that statement is truly fucking funny.
ed wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 12:50 pm
Wow. Pretty thin. Are you saying that there is no censorship?
No, I freely admit Tarrant's video and "manifesto" are completely censored here.
ed wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 12:50 pm
How do you know what is being said?
Because it's all over the dark net and accessible in seconds.
ed wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 12:50 pm
So who, then, is the censorship directed at? Your inferiors, the ones who might acually be taken in by the words?
As I pointed out, it's not a case of people being swayed by the words of a lunatic, it's having respect for the victims. I wouldn't expect an American to understand that when you have heroes like Ed Gallagher to look up to.

Allowing the manifesto and video to be displayed in NZ would be re-victimising the families of the dead and the people injured. Kiwis have this weird softness for victims and don't allow it to happen.

Does USA allow publication of child sex victims' names? If not, why not? Why are you happy to disallow free speech in that instance?
Jeff Wagg, Communication and Outreach Manager for the James Randi Educational Foundation posted:

"It is my job to inform other JREF employees about people who wish to do the JREF harm, and you [The Atheist] are one of those.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 72330
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by Doctor X »

Hotarubi wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 4:24 pm
Doctor X wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 6:09 am
The USA does not ban the Confederate flags; a number of driveways no longer want it painted there.
I was just referring to an earlier story, flippantly I admit.
No worries, as was I.

– J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out." – Don
DocX: FTW. – sparks
"Doctor X wins again." – Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry." – His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone." – clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far." – Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig." – Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power." – asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." – gnome

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 22427
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by Rob Lister »

The Atheist wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 3:59 am
Does USA allow publication of child sex victims' names? If not, why not? Why are you happy to disallow free speech in that instance?
I addressed this in my award-winning post above. Generally speaking, there is no federal law against it. State laws exist but they are not really prosecutable; they would not stand Supreme Court muster. The media will not publish them as a matter of courtesy, not law.

Is that a distinction without a difference? Maybe, but the underlying premise is that no form of speech should be illegal unless it presents a clear and present danger (i.e. inciting riot and the like). I think the only real exception is public nudity, the degree of which differs from state to state, but generally it is okay in a strip club but not on the street.

User avatar
robinson
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Nice guy
Location: USA

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by robinson »

To remove ones clothing is a revolutionary act
♪ ♫ ♩ ♬ "

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."

♪ ♫ ♩ ♬

User avatar
robinson
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Nice guy
Location: USA

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by robinson »

Nothing is more hated than an unclothed human
♪ ♫ ♩ ♬ "

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."

♪ ♫ ♩ ♬

User avatar
ed
Posts: 38150
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by ed »

Rob Lister wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 7:53 am
the underlying premise is that no form of speech ... (is) illegal unless it presents a clear and present danger (i.e. inciting riot and the like). I
The "Fire in a theater" thing was addressed well by Abdul and led to Brandenberg which required incitement to imminent lawless action before speech could be regulated.

I can appreciate the powers that be wishing to "protect" the families of the victims of a tragedy and that is fine and good but must be viewed as something that would not pass muster here. As various people have noted, there is no Constitutional provision that prevents hurt feelings.

Censorship is censorship and as I have noted, it never ever occurs without a reference to the benefit that will accrue to "the people". The core difference between us and "them" is that we leave it to the people to decide what is acceptable. And there are slippery slopes.

If you can justify giving government the power to regulate speech more power to you but it is dangerous regardless of the ever well meaning rationale that the government will provide.

As we see in the present case, the government asserts it's right to regulate. People (who should know better, frankly) applaud. The information "regulated" is still available the objective was not met yet the power and precedent remain. And that is good ... why? That is the height of virtue signaling and leaves a dangerous residue.

I'm done with this.
About that stereo

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 82854
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by Abdul Alhazred »

Banning the manifesto does not protect the victim's families, it only protects New Zealanders in general from understanding his motivation.

Their government tells then it was racism and leaves it it that, leaving their citizens free to make fashionably stupid comparisons.
But they could do that anyway.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
The arc of the moral universe bends towards chaos.
People who believe God or History are on their side provide the chaos.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Posts: 29384
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by Pyrrho »

Like all terrorists, he got his malevolence distributed far and wide, for free, by willing enablers.
The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 82854
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by Abdul Alhazred »

Such as Facebook?
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
The arc of the moral universe bends towards chaos.
People who believe God or History are on their side provide the chaos.

User avatar
Hotarubi
Posts: 977
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:12 am
Title: Enchantress
Location: This septic Isle.

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by Hotarubi »

ed wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 8:37 pm
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 5:20 pm
Hotarubi wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 4:27 pm
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 12:34 pm
Invented by the English. But unfortunately rejected by (most) of them.
Have you spoken to all of them?
Beg pardon. Amended version: Most of those in power.
May I interject? Yes, I spoke to all of them. It is as Abdul says.

They also say that they do not need you to "protect them". They find it offensive and they assure me that if you keep it up they will acquaint you with some of their quaint, diverse, pastimes. Like sub-incision.
:?
Yep, you totally outsmarted me ~ Wildcat.

:ball2:

User avatar
ed
Posts: 38150
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Banned in New Zealand?

Post by ed »

Hotarubi wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 7:14 pm
ed wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 8:37 pm
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 5:20 pm
Hotarubi wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 4:27 pm
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 12:34 pm
Invented by the English. But unfortunately rejected by (most) of them.
Have you spoken to all of them?
Beg pardon. Amended version: Most of those in power.
May I interject? Yes, I spoke to all of them. It is as Abdul says.

They also say that they do not need you to "protect them". They find it offensive and they assure me that if you keep it up they will acquaint you with some of their quaint, diverse, pastimes. Like sub-incision.
:?
The Maoris intimated that they don't appreciate you insinuating yourself in their affairs.
Yes, all of them. And while Maoris are not as bulky as Samoans (USA territory so necessarily better, bigger, etc) they are formidable when angered.

Word to the wise.
About that stereo