Banning of manifesto raises free speech debate in N. Zealand
32 replies, posted
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/zealands-mosque-killings-spark-debate-over-free-speech-121116719.html
I don't see how this needs to be debated. While I'm aware that you could use it as a way of telling people 'look at this crazy motherfucker, we don't want you to be like him' but in this case I think it outweight any pros and its only going to spurr other crazy people to take up arms and do copycat incidents.
Freedom of speech ain't without consequences, besides the definition varies depending on where you're from.
In the US there is a defined limit of free speech where the government's interest in the general welfare and the public good supersedes it. This is why children can be forced to vaccinate to attend school and why
the government goes after child porn. New Zealand must decide whether this is clearly in the public's interest or not.
Seems like something not even worth banning, It's more likely to convince a reader the person who wrote it is an idiot rather than convince you to follow suit.
I don't know if banning the manifesto is a good idea or not, I've heard good opinions for and against censorship in this case, but I think it's worth mentioning that a lot of what was in it isn't too far removed from stuff you can find rather easily on Reddit and Youtube, where it's delivered in a much more accessible way. I don't really see people becoming radicalized from reading the manifesto, if that's the fear. I think the only people reading it will be curious onlookers or people who are already sympathetic to it's message.
There's always been a soft limit on freedom of speech but too many people are vocal about not giving a shit anymore, the recognition they'd get in their group of associates is worth more to them than public opinion and the greater good, for that matter.
I'm sure the vast majority of people still care but they're not the vocal ones, they're usually thinking "talking this person out of their retarded ideology sounds like a pain in the ass, if not impossible" and for my money, they're right.
obviously it should be available on request, but not readily distributed (if that makes sense).
i don't know why anyone would want to read it in the first place (unless one was looking to find common ground...)
leave it to the professional psychologists / academics to analyse, then give their reports to the public.
Wouldn't the manifesto being out and about for everyone to read and consume be something the killer would want?
I haven't read it so I cannot say if it's ban is good for the public good or not, but all this talk of banning it seems ineffective. Like, if I wanted to see it, I could find it pretty easily.
I feel that DNS blocking sites, sending takedown notices from the NZ police and all of that, will only spark the curiosity of more people and put more eyes on it.
Can someone tell me the difference between the manifesto and something like Mein Kampf in relation to their racist ideology and wishes?
From my understanding, Mein Kampf is more general ideological stuff while the shooter's manifesto has explicit and specific targets/methods etc. for terrorist attacks, making it more terrorist material than merely espousing ideology.
If there was ever a heated debate on what went down at the New Zealand shooting, knowing what was on the manifesto would be vital.
Like it or not people have always used shooting as a way to either blame people or even worse, embolden their own movements. If in the event something in the manifesto was to inform the reader on the shooters motives, it would be handy to know before hand as either an ideological defence or a moment of ideological revelation, which may grant an opportunity to introspect ones values in comparison.
To ban people looking at the manifesto is the same as a prosecutor holding evidence that could prove a persons innocence (not the shooter, but the people blamed for it.)
We must trust the public to make the right choice once reading, even at our own peril.
it being banned would be much closer to what he wants than it being just another morbid curiosity
That's fair
Imo, if someone gets sucked in by this manifesto and is REALLY resolved and capable to murder a bunch of people but lacks the know-how on methods, I don't think censorship of all meterial related to the shooting is the right choice to make
While this is the case for most people, it only takes one unstable nutjob reading the manifesto for it to be very dangerous.
nothing in his manifesto is either new information or new ideology.
The decision whether to ban it should be made based on whether it's the right thing to do or not
What the killer wanted is not a consideration
That's a very logical point, but logic doesn't drive unstable people to shoot up places. Just the words reinforced by the recency of the attack are enough to rile up copycats, as we've seen with the mosque arson in California.
There is nothing to gain by having the manifesto publicly available, only a negative risk.
the copycat attacks were caused by the act of the attack itself, along with how publicized it was. if you wanted to stop them, you'd have to have made it impossible to read the manifesto the moment it release. it is too late, now. fuck, banning it is just going to give unstable people a bigger reason to try and get access to it, which will never be impossible.
banning it isn't the right thing to do.
Fewer people feel compelled to go track down the ~forbidden~ manifesto, which will no doubt still be widely available because this is the Internet?
Not giving more ammunition to extremists, who rely on a narrative of persecution to recruit others?
Not setting a potentially abusable precedent?
Better awareness of what extremism looks like, so that people (particularly mental health professionals and the like) can better recognize it in others?
I just don't see what's gained by restricting it, and we've seen time and time again that on the Internet, trying to hide and suppress information doesn't work. We're already seeing traffic to /pol/ skyrocket after NZ instituted a ban- trying to block something only calls attention and interest to it.
Banning it is just going to lead to people's curiosity searching it out, it being paraded online anyway, and giving it a level of seriousness, whereas making it public and then going in and breaking down how ridiculous every point made is would probably do a lot more good
I don’t think using the legal system to prosecute every single individual sharing the manifest is feasible or worth the resources, but a ban on media organizations from glorifying the shooter with 24/7 news coverage and giving us his entire life story would probably be a much more effective measure.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w-D3YoW3Hxg
Speaking as someone who agrees it shouldn't be banned, I don't think "It's what the shooter wanted" is a very strong argument for, well, anything. It's been one I've seen passed around a lot but why would anyone decide to do something based on whether the shooter wanted it or not?
Oh I guess you agree, nevermind.
Nah, we don't give propaganda to terrorists. You have curious people? let them seek it on the deep net together with the stuff of other terrorist groups. The last we need is to give them more attention.
i wasn't trying to use it being what he wanted as a reason for anything, more contesting what the quoted poster said
I'm genuinely not trying to misunderstand you here but it's hard. So you don't think that banning the manifesto is what the shooter would have wanted, but you think banning it would give him more attention? Does he not want attention? I'm sorry I'm genuinely confused.
how many memos have spawned copycats, really?
I'm pretty sure i still have Elliot Rodger's manifesto on my hard drive somewhere. AFAIK I haven't stabbed any bleached blonde sorority girls or football chads.
Why is what he wants relevant to what is just?
We shouldn't let criminals dictate public policy...
Nor should "IT HURTS THE CRIMINAL" be used as a reason for curtailing the freedom of speech
i think banning the manifesto would be precisely what he wants because doing so would cause greater disruption, be a point of division between people, and lead to a more oppressive government, under which people might be more likely to radicalize. i don't think he cares about attention on himself.
banning guns is what he wants government reaction to be to this, blaming people like pewdiepie is the kind of reaction he wants, crackdowns and more ostracism of people like him is what he wants.
I understand your argument but what confused me was that you said "i wasn't trying to use it being what he wanted as a reason for anything". It just seems like you are contradicting yourself.
i mean i wasn't using his reasons or anything like that as an argument to ban or not ban the manifesto. my own reasoning for why the manifesto shouldn't be banned is that i don't like government censorship of information, it would be an impossible task, and i think such manifestos should be studied and the contents dissected so that me might further understand why people are going that direction.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.