
ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent - Melchizedek
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/03/isps-in-au-and-nz-start-censoring-the-internet-without-legal-precedent/
======
jjcm
The problem with censoring and banning the information outright (in the case
of NZ) is that it gives power to the manifesto. So much of what Jacinda Ardern
said after the shooting was about denying the person a platform:

"We, in New Zealand, will give him nothing. Not even his name."

"He sought many things from his act of terror, but one was notoriety, and that
is why you will never hear me mention his name."

And yet by the ISPs banning sites and with the New Zealand government
classifying the manifesto as objectionable, they've done just that. They've
told the people that the manifesto and the video are notorious by their
decisions around it. They've put it on a pedestal and said, "this here holds
power, and we should be scared of those who consume it".

~~~
XorNot
No they haven't.

What they're doing is preventing the spread of radicalization to vulnerable
demographics. They're breaking up the ability of alt-right groups to try and
rally around it.

You don't get to shoot a bunch of people and have your manifesto spread far
and wide. You get forgotten. And your manifesto gets banned. Because who cares
what you had to say - it's irrelevant.

As to the video: go extract release forms from the families of the victims in
it if you want to see to see it. See if they're okay with the last terrified
moments of their loved ones being distributed as and broadcast worldwide, and
the government okaying the sharing of that. It would be illegal to go to a
hospital and film people dying in bed without permission - and it would exact
significant criminal and financial penalties if you did so. This is _worse_.

~~~
jjcm
> You get forgotten

That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay
forgotten. We see Tiananmen Square pop up all the time not because of its
major historical significance, but because of the attempts by certain
governments to censor it.

There are better ways to forget something collectively as a culture. Right now
if you google "New Zealand shooting", half of the articles are about the
banning of the information. The banning itself gave it more attention, and
realistically it wont stop those who want to find it from finding it.

What I'd rather have seen was NZ focusing on the victims and the families.
Drown out the manifesto with positivity. Focus the news cycle on the
communities that have been affected; show them coming together and embracing
each other. Make what is remembered not the shooter or their manifesto, but
how the community responded.

~~~
ignoramous
> That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay
> forgotten.

Pretty much this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

Also, govt (democratic ones, esp) are notorious for being short-sighted and
taking populist measures, so no surprises here:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses)

Imo, what the govt should considering doing (if they haven't already):

1\. Weed out rouge elements (sadly, extensive surveillance is one way to
achieve this, another would be with help of citizen-journalists/investigators)
within the state, and secure immigration points

2\. A focused task force to address internal threats and give them a degree of
autonomy.

3\. A memorial to immortalize the victims.

4\. Govt mandated security at places of congregation of all sizes (malls,
stations, places of worship, parks).

Edit: /s

~~~
Carpetsmoker
So basically to protect freedom we need to create a police state with
permanent security everywhere and live in constant fear.

Is /r/TopMindsOfHN a thing yet?

~~~
ignoramous
Sorry. I guess the sarcasm was too dry to be obvious?

I listed down things that other nation states (NSA? Abu Gharib/Patriot Act?
Wall along the Radcliffe Line?) have done in the past in response to
persistent danger. And are guilty of taking populist measures at a great
expense, sometimes.

There's always been such knee-jerk reaction from nation states, that then
resort to drastic initiatives partly because they do not understand
technologies involved (Secure Golden Key?), or they aren't held accountable as
often and get away with a lot (WMDs?).

Here's Bruce Schneier on the topic
[https://youtu.be/GkJCI3_jbtg](https://youtu.be/GkJCI3_jbtg)

------
aphextron
The government of New Zealand’s entire response to the shooting incident, as
well as the public’s cheering for it, is the most disturbing Orwellian thing
I’ve ever seen. The level of authoritarian curbing of freedoms that has
seemingly happened overnight at the stroke of a pen should seriously concern
anyone who values constitutionally limited government. I’m all for the debate,
but as an American it’s unimaginable to see such reactionary, arbitrary, far
sweeping action taken by a supposed free country with almost no discussion or
legal process.

~~~
erentz
> the most disturbing Orwellian thing I’ve ever seen. The level of
> authoritarian curbing of freedoms that has seemingly happened overnight at
> the stroke of a pen should seriously concern anyone who values
> constitutionally limited government.

Woah hold the hyperbole. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

What actions specifically are you even referring to? The change in gun laws?
Australia banned semi-automatics. It’s survived. Pretty sure New Zealand will
be okay without them too.

This post is about the ISPs banning sites, not something that the government
of either country directed. (As the post makes clear Australia’s largest telco
is also banning these sites.)

> I’m all for the debate, but as an American it’s unimaginable to see such
> reactionary, arbitrary, far sweeping action taken by a supposed free country
> with almost no discussion or legal process.

What was far sweeping and done with no discussion or legal process? You
pretend like there isn’t a parliament with elected members, a far more
representative and democratic parliament that any US government due to the use
of proportional representation. This parliament is the legislative branch and
can, well enact legislation, which is doing to ban semi automatic weapons
based on the results of previous government enquiries into the matter that
weren’t acted on.

(Talk about throwing stones here, seemingly nobody remembers 9/11 and the
Patriot Act, and mass spying on Americans, and trillions spent on false wars
that followed.)

A civil debate about the actions of these ISPs and the ability of private
companies operating as utilities to censor or throttle or otherwise mess with
neutrality of the utility they provide is very much warranted, but you’re not
doing that here.

~~~
huntie
The ISPs aren't banning sites for kicks. New Zealanders have been arrested for
distributing the video.

~~~
myrandomcomment
Great, please show me the act of parliament done in the light of day that made
this illegal? The video SHOULD NOT BE WATCHED. It stand for everything I as a
human abhor. However it is slippy slope, that leads to no good end.

~~~
huntie
I don't know what you mean by "act of parliament". This video should most
definitely be watched in order to understand this event in full. No
description of what happened can impart upon you the brutality of watching him
go back in to double tap the victims. There is a severe lack of understanding
of the impact of our actions when we choose to censor events like this.

~~~
KidComputer
People lost their lives terribly, that much can be understood without watching
it. What more do you really gain by watching the video? Do you have some
morbid curiosity that you need to satisfy? Do you think we should disregard
the feelings of the survivors or those who lost someone close? How do you
think they feel about the video being shared? How would you? Do you think they
deserve respect and solidarity? If so, how does sharing the video contribute
to that?

~~~
throwaway8879
If someone wants to watch it, regardless of the intent, they should be allowed
to. Disrespect should not be illegal. That's silly.

~~~
KidComputer
That's not even an argument. So people should be allowed to watch child porn?

Plenty of parallels between the two. People are hurt in the filming of both.
It's damaging to the survivors. It feeds into the fetishes of those who would
watch such a thing (it's a snuff film). In the case of this film I could argue
that potential perpetrators could study the film for their own plans.

------
spondyl
While not an official statement, this forum post from a Spark employee is
worth a read:
[https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=184&topicid=24...](https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=184&topicid=248227&page_no=6#2198928)

\---

 _I am NOT officially empowered to talk about this but I want to shut down any
conjecture right now.

No actions of Spark taken now or over the next 24 hours or so should be
considered representative of policy. They may turn out to be temporary, they
may even with hindsight not be considered the best move. However the number of
direct links going around to certain sites and threads where some truly
horrific and almost certainly illegal material was being hosted met a
threshold for immediate and extraordinary action. We're killing the DNS
entries for a couple of sites.

I should note that this had approval from the highest levels, and we're not
the only ISP doing this.

Right now is where we all get a chance to demonstrate our humanity in the face
of a terrible tragedy. Reach out and help people. I know many people in Chch
and around the country that are in shock. I know I am - and I know there are
hundreds or thousands of people that are directly massively impacted by this
today.

At some point in the near future we'll evaluate what to roll back. But not
today.

Cheers - Neil Gardner_

~~~
thaumasiotes
> No actions of Spark taken now or over the next 24 hours or so should be
> considered representative of policy.

That's not how it works. When you claim to have a policy, and don't bother to
even pretend that it governs your actions, your actions will be taken to
represent your policy, because what people care about is your actual policy,
not a document you happen to call your "policy".

------
terragon
The mobile operator Jio does the same thing here in India. Any content that
offends their conservative interests, is routinely blocked without any legal
repurcussions.

If ISPs want to act as curators to content they just provide access to, then
they should be held legally liable for illegal content. Else, just act as a
dumb pipe and give up all responsibility.

~~~
IdontRememberIt
"then they should be held legally liable for illegal content"

Thanks for bringing this point.

------
doesnt_know
Not everyone holds the same absolute views on freedom of speech as those drawn
up in the American constitution. There is also plenty of opposing views of a
"constitutionally limited government" that seems to be at the heart of
American culture.

Frankly, it's pretty disturbing how many Americans are unable to comprehend
that their way isn't the "only way" that can be valid.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights provides freedom of expression, but it's also
limited by the human rights act. Racial disharmony is illegal. Even if the
shooter didn't follow through with the shootings, he could have been punished
for simply publishing that manifesto of his.

~~~
legostormtroopr
> "Racial disharmony is illegal."

Why? Why should racial disharmony be illegal? It sucks when people don't like
you, maybe they have good reasons, maybe not - but legislating "harmony" just
sounds wrong.

Also, why are people allowed to loudly proclaim "white people are evil"
loudly, and broadly, without issues - isn't that also racial disharmony?

~~~
marcus_holmes
Why? because Australia and NZ have large immigrant populations (in fact, _are_
large immigrant populations) that contain many races. Racial disharmony causes
huge problems, and creates the real possibility of violence, mayhem and
bloodshed. As reasonable societies, these things are seen as bad and to be
avoided. Consequently, actions that will create racial disharmony are illegal.

You can hate on whoever you like, but you can't grab a megaphone, head down to
the mall, and encourage other people to hate the same people that you do. I
don't know about you, but that seems like a pretty benign restriction to me...

~~~
oska
> but you can't grab a megaphone, head down to the mall, and encourage other
> people to hate the same people that you do

Your example is a misdirection. What you describe is being a public nuisance
in a public area, not free speech. I don't want to be subjected to nasty,
racist rhetoric in a public space, just as I don't want to be harangued to
repent of my sins and "Let Jesus into my life" in the same place. But I
support the right of people to be able to express these views in a published
form, or in closed spaces such as on a talking tour or in a church. In both
cases audiences are seeking to be exposed to these views and are actively
going to a place to find them, not having them pushed on them as they go about
their ordinary lives.

~~~
leesalminen
> In both cases audiences are seeking to be exposed to these views

If people only hear what they want to hear then issues will never be resolved.
It’s necessary to hear things sometimes, even if it’s personally revolting or
bothersome. Everyone has to deal with annoying people in life and laws won’t
fix it.

------
sebthedev
Those websites were distributing material that was illegal under New Zealand
law (content relating to the recent terrorist attack).

Any person in New Zealand who possesses objectionable content is liable for
imprisonment for up to 10 years. Distributing the objectionable content can
result in imprisonment for up to 14 years.

The ISPs were simply declining to distribute or possess the objectionable
content (which would have be illegal for them to distribute or possess).

[https://www.dia.govt.nz/Censorship-Objectionable-and-
Restric...](https://www.dia.govt.nz/Censorship-Objectionable-and-Restricted-
Material)

~~~
layoutIfNeeded
Reminds me of the first episode of Black Mirror, when the British PM is
preparing for his act with the pig, his aides try to calm him by saying that
the parliament have just passed a law that prohibits the possession of the
material that’s about to be broadcasted.

~~~
cam_l
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Anthem_%28Black_M...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Anthem_%28Black_Mirror%29)

See also..

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate)

------
mnm1
So just like after 9/11 in the US, the terrorists win. They scare the powers
that be into making life worse for an entire country's citizens. I guess
people never learn from history. Both corporations and the government end up
doing the terrorists' bidding while thinking they are protecting people. The
people have no say. I bet the shooters are laughing from their cells just like
al quada did from its caves. Terrorism all around. I'm sure this is just the
beginning just like 9/11 was just the beginning of a terror campaign mostly
waged by our own government here in the US.

~~~
ElCapitanMarkla
Why do you say life is worse here?

We’ve banned most semi auto guns.

And his writing and video have been classed as objectionable...

Why’s my life worse off for the governments actions?

~~~
identity-haver
For one, your ability to defend your self and your family has been partially
abrogated. Now it depends more on physical strength and the wealth to live in
a safe area with other defenses.

Second, your ability to access the internet has been shown to be arbitrarily
limitable, kind of like China's great firewall.

Third, your ability to speak and communicate about political issues has been
tamped. Today it's possessing somebody else's anti-Muslim manifesto that gets
you 10 years, tomorrow it's an anti-party manifesto. Let me take a look
through all your private messages and documents, and believe me, I will find
something that I can "class as objectionable".

~~~
ElCapitanMarkla
NZer's weren't stock piling guns to defend themselves with so your first
argument just isn't valid to begin with.

This isn't a government ordered blocking. NZ does have a govt blacklist but it
isn't enforced, ISP's opt into it. My ISP didn't block anything.

No one needs to read that manifesto to debate far right fascism.

~~~
CompanionCuuube
One is not a stockpile under any reasonable definition.

Your government doesn't allow the ownership of guns for self-defense but so
far it doesn't outright prohibit them from being used that way.

~~~
ElCapitanMarkla
You are correct. To quote the arms code -
[https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/...](https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/the-
arms-code-2013.pdf) (page 41)

"Citizens are justified in using force in self-defence in certain situations.
The force that is justified will depend on the circumstances of the particular
case. Every person is criminally responsible for any excessive use of force
against another person.

A firearm is a lethal weapon. To justify the discharge of a firearm at another
person the user must hold a honest belief that they or someone else is at
imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

Discharge of a firearm at another person will result in a Police investigation
and what ever the consequences of the incident you may face serious criminal
charges."

It's worth keeping in mind that we still have guns, it's just a certain type
of gun that's getting banned. And it's worked well in Aus so far.

~~~
CompanionCuuube
Certain _types_ of gun. It's not just one type being banned.

------
berti
I just checked, and only three of the thirteen "blocked" sites are not
working. Of those eztv.is appears to have a DNS problem (no A record, only an
SOA record pointing at a parking address of the registrar), and traceroutes
archive.is and archive.fo get as far as an address in the Netherlands, so I
don't think they're blocked in NZ. ISP is 2degrees, Cloudflare DNS.

On a side-note, I'm probably now on some watch list.

~~~
NemosDemos
What I'm finding somewhat interesting is that Cloudflare (1.1.1.1) appears to
be sinkholing that DNS request for me (I'm currently inside Australia -
127.0.0.3 is being returned) whereas Google (8.8.8.8) does not (51.38.113.224
returned). Doesn't look like it's just me either - ViewDNS [1] is currently
showing 'www.archive.is' returning 127.0.0.3 from Sydney.

[1][https://viewdns.info/propagation/?domain=www.archive.is](https://viewdns.info/propagation/?domain=www.archive.is)

~~~
eastdakota
archive.is intentionally returns the wrong result to us:

[https://community.cloudflare.com/t/archive-is-
error-1001/182...](https://community.cloudflare.com/t/archive-is-
error-1001/18227)

We've asked them, repeatedly, to stop doing this. They refuse. It's bizarre.

------
cco
I would encourage everybody who was taken aback by the shooting to read the
manifesto, if you are legally allowed to. It helped me better understand this
groundswell of overt racism we've seen in the last few years and, by an
inverse reading of it, provided some strategies on how we might resist it.

If you're there type of person that reads this manifesto and thinks, "yes I
agree with this and I should do what it says" then you'd also react the same
way to Mein Kampf and you're already a violent racist. These writings provide
really valuable insights into what drives these abhorrent political movements
and how to counteract them. They don't go away if you close your eyes.

------
repolfx
Did anyone else notice that ZeroHedge is apparently now a site so dangerous
that entire populations can't be exposed to it?

ZEROHEDGE?

Jeez, I've been reading articles on and off there for years and have never
hurt a fly. What are they afraid of exactly, mass outbreaks of gold hoarding,
extremists who disagree with central bank monetary policy?

I just visited and one of the top stories is objecting to an apparent trend of
US cops shooting dogs. How is this site considered systematically dangerous by
New Zealand ISPs?

Or is this what we always see censors do - decide terrorist attacks by white
men justify blocking large swathes of ordinary conservative political opinion
that has nothing to do with race or religion?

------
kristianp
Interesting that [https://www.archive.is/](https://www.archive.is/) is on the
list. I find that a little hard to believe, but perhaps there were popular
links to it being shared.

------
zzo38computer
If they censor in this way then they are not a real internet service and
should not call that (nor should they be given the enough IPv4 address ranges
like ISPs; so, maybe they will run out if they are not a real ISP!) (unless
perhaps you can get rid of the censorships by disabling NAT which you would
freely be allowed to do, maybe). Real internet connect through proper protocol
routing to the address based only on the packet header, and not the port
number or payload (unless the packet is directed to the ISP's servers
anyways), for the purpose only to routing to the correct destination and to
receive the correct reply (if the payload is incorrect, they should send it
anyways; that is not for the ISP to consider unless the packet is directed at
their own servers) (however, if the header is incorrect (including specifying
addresses that are impossible, but not only if they are merely censored), then
they can block it; note I mean the IP header, and not the TCP or UDP header,
which is at the other level than the routing, so they should not tamper with).
(For example, if the packet specifies 127.0.0.1 as the source or destination
address, then they are allowed to block it; and if you do such thing too much,
they can even warn you to correct your computer.)

------
Taniwha
I think that the main thing missing here is that the NZ ISPs started blocking
access to the snuff film within hours of the terrorist's slaughter, the
government started making proclamations days later.

The snuff film fetishists started passing it around within minutes of it being
broadcast, if anything one can argue that the ISPs started too late.

Remember by NZ law something like this snuf film is created 'obscene', the
censor just confirms that it is, you're legally responsible for not breaking
the law by copying it, or publishing it from that first moment that it exists
... and so are our ISPs, these laws were written for film, transient copies
caused by their customers accessing the illegal content puts them at legal
risk, all they can do is to refuse to let people access the places which could
put them (the ISPs) at risk

------
jpollock
New Zealand has operated a country-wide content filter for years. It is
primarily used to filter out "content depicting the sexual abuse or
exploitation of children and young persons" [1]. Filtering of objectionable
content is entirely within the social norms of New Zealand.

For comparison, since the video and manifesto have been labelled
"objectionable" [2] it would be illegal to burn either to a disk and then
carry the disk across the border. The argument the government will make is
that this is applying the same rules to content imported into the country via
the Internet instead.

If the population expects the social networks to take this content down, they
will expect ISPs to remove access to social networks which do _not_ take the
content down.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zealand)
[2] [https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-
news/ch...](https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-
news/christchurch-attacks-press-releases/#christchurch-attack-video-footage-
and-document-has-been-banned-in-nz-what-this-means-for-you)

~~~
SturgeonsLaw
Questions of appropriateness in this scenario put aside, the fact that an
internet filter which started for "please think of the children" reasons has
expanded in scope is eminently predictable.

------
roel_v
Ironically, this page itself is unavailable from AU - or is it just me?

~~~
joneil
I can read it just fine from here (Telstra 4G)

------
baconhigh
All the sites in the article were hosting illegal (in NZ) content - they were
temporarily blocked till the video (of a terrorist killing innocent people)
was taken down.

Nobody needs to see that.

It's not about free speech.

The sites in question are used to spread hate, racism, violence and bigotry.

Why are we tolerating this kind of media in our lives? Why are we letting
people upload this?

It is not free speech. It is targeted hate.

~~~
DuskStar
Hate speech is free speech that you happen to not like.

~~~
ElCapitanMarkla
Except this is hate speech. Or are you saying it isn’t

~~~
DuskStar
I dislike it, so it's hate speech, of course!

But I tend to believe that I should not have the power to determine what can
or cannot be said, _and that no one else should have that power either_.

~~~
Throwway32
If you were to say, make a pro-ISIS video, or Tweet, would you expect to
remain unmolested by the authorities in the United States? All societies set
boundaries on what is acceptable speech.

~~~
DuskStar
I would expect making a pro-ISIS video/tweet to leave me without additional
molestation from the government, yes. Probably wouldn't stay up on YouTube,
but other sites don't seem to have a problem with such things.
(stereotypically, that would be LiveLeak)

You can check out the list of exceptions to free speech in the US here [0]. I
disagree with a number of them, but an "ISIS is awesome and this is why" video
would fall under none of them. (the same goes for a "Hitler was awesome"
video, a "Trump is awesome" video, or a "Trump is a fascist and we need to
rise up in violent rebellion" video)

0:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions)

~~~
Throwway32
_I would expect making a pro-ISIS video /tweet to leave me without additional
molestation from the government, yes_

If you made pro-ISIS materials, you can expect the US government to closely
monitor you, and quite likely attempt to entrap you.[1]

If you made large numbers of pro-ISIS videos, even if you were a US citizen,
there would be a strong possibility that you would be killed [2]

[1]
[https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2018/07/fbi_arrest_of_clevel...](https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2018/07/fbi_arrest_of_cleveland_terror.html)

[2][https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-
of-a...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-
awlaki.html)

------
MBO35711
There is free speech, and then there is sensible. In NZ we don't use the
perpetrators name and we don't want you looking at his messages. Get over it!

~~~
PostOnce
Well, we could just turn the entire internet off, then the messages would
surely be hidden.

Archive.is has a lot more than one page.

~~~
MBO35711
Well that would be silly.

~~~
PostOnce
the point is, you have to draw a line somewhere, and if the line is "nobody
can see anything this guy wrote" then the collateral damage is going to be
perhaps just too much.

When I said Archive.is has more than one page, I meant we're blocking millions
of non-offending pages for the sake of blocking one that offends.

So, how far will we go? Block Archive.is? Block Facebook? The whole internet?

~~~
apostacy
This level of heavy handedness was unprecedented in the west, and is more
characteristic of China than anything else.

------
Jason_Genova
EDIT: removed because I did not realize what kind of website the site I linked
was.

~~~
doldge
trying to be charitable here; could you perhaps expand on the point you're
trying to make by posting this exchange?

It otherwise looks like a very insensitive, small-minded person responding
overly aggressively to what is otherwise a very reasonable and restrained
request from the NZ Police.

~~~
Jason_Genova
Sure, the meat of what I thought interesting was the initial email. I thought
it was concerning that the NZ police were looking to get IP/email addresses of
people merely conversing about the attacker.

The rest of the thread is just funny because the police respond in the best
way possible to the site operator's freakout.

~~~
doldge
in what world is that concerning? They've been trying to discern if there was
a cell of people around who harbour the same intent as this man, or if he was
acting alone. New Zealand, a sovereign nation, has every right to request that
information. The email was simply a case of whether the maintainer of the site
would respond reasonably to a request from the NZ judicial system, or whether
they would need to subpeona the information using the US judicial system. If
that maintainer of that site is serving content to New Zealand, that it seems
reasonable that he should be beholden to NZ laws.

As a part of there investigation into the act this man committed, they're
looking at all activity around the event and the sort of people engaging with
it. From a quick look at that website and the thread you linked, I expect (and
at least hope), that most of the people who frequent it are now on a watch
list after the events of last week.

~~~
mnm1
> If that maintainer of that site is serving content to New Zealand, that it
> seems reasonable that he should be beholden to NZ laws.

So should be also be beholden to Chinese, Saudi Arabian, Russian, North
Korean, and other governments' laws for simply having a website? That's beyond
absurd and by that line of reasoning, most website operators should be jailed
in some country or other. This is one of the most absurd arguments I've ever
read. Luckily, it has no legal basis. Hopefully it never will.

~~~
doldge
see my reply to the sibling comment. I would also ask you to be charitable in
your reading of my words.

------
MBO35711
My apologies. Might I ask a question, please? How do we otherwise stop the
internet being hacked to support these vile creatures?

~~~
rgoulter
I'm concerned that "censorship of bad views" leads to radicalisation. e.g. if
you have concerns that are morally unacceptable to express, the only place you
can express those concerns are in morally unacceptable areas.

I think the hope of censoring bad views is to increase that friction before
people get there; make it harder for 'ordinary' people to stumble across vile
sites, and reduce access to vile sites to those determined to get it.

I'm concerned that having a hammer of "censorship makes this problem goes
away" makes it easier to see other social problems as nails. One line to draw
is "censor speech which directly incites or leads to violence". It seems the
line NZ is drawing (and ISPs preemptively drew) is "objectionable" or
"injurious to the public good". That seems much easier to abuse.

~~~
roca
We have abundant evidence that not censoring bad views also leads to
radicalisation. So your argument is weak.

~~~
tomp
I’m really interested in that. Do you have links to any studies or other
sources?

