Duh!
Christchurch video...
- Thread starter Beer w/Straw
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
They are not taking away "world news" in any society.
They are restricting access to a video of someone slaughtering 50 people and injuring dozens more.
The news remains the same. The story remains the same, the outcome is the same.
50 people are still dead. Dozens were still injured.
The alternative is the video is allowed to be streamed, shared (particularly among far right groups who pose a clear threat to the health and safety of others) and used as a propaganda tool.
But most importantly, also poisoning the jury pool in New Zealand for when he faces trial for his horrific crimes. Because that video is a vital piece of evidence. I mean, is it more important for you to get to watch the video at the risk of it affecting his trial, for example?
But heaven forbid New Zealand's government restrict your right to "world news" by banning that video in their country.
Keep in mind, you can still watch the video. You just cannot do so in New Zealand.
So I'll ask again, what is to gain in watching that particular video?
You're not of the jury, I presume?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Indeed, all the more perplexing watching members try to tear Bw/S a new one, since she's Canadian. this thread would have been a lot shorter without that.
And I'll answer again: in a free society, a person's gain is their own business; it need not be defended.
Asking for it is a prelude to passing judgement on it, and finding it insufficient in your opinion, which you don't get to do.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Then perhaps you should have addressed those individuals?
Because Beer went from making such arguments to rambling about "truths".. Given my argument with Rainbow in this thread, about leveling ridiculous accusations at those who believe the video should be made public, I think we are both arguing about different things at this point.
I do not have a problem with New Zealand legislating against such videos, nor do I have a problem with their banning it from their country. They have valid reasons to do so.
Then perhaps you should take your complaint to Facebook.
The video was livestreamed there. They took it down because of its content. Facebook is a private organisation. They have opted to remove the video and such videos from their platform because it is in breach of their ToS. Other social media outlets that are privately owned also have similar ToS and are known to remove and ban such content.
I believe there may still be copies of it on white supremacist websites, where such restrictions do not exist. You can perhaps find your news there.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I don't have a complaint.
Facebook has every right to take it down; I never suggested they didn't.
If I have a complaint, it's that members here seem to feel it's OK to tear others down for expressing their desire to exercise their rights.
Word news? Weren't we talking about broadcasting a killer's personal video of his killing spree, along with his rambling excuses and propaganda?
Wrong.
Once again, I note that you have not given any good reason as to why you need access to those things, or pointed to any potential public good that might come from publicising them.
Wait, I never said the video should be public, however, I went searching for it.
So, how many straw man arguments are made against me???
Didn't you delete my image, James, an act of censorship?
Why don't you just ban me.
So, how many straw man arguments are made against me???
Didn't you delete my image, James, an act of censorship?
Why don't you just ban me.
Why did you go searching for it?
Notice that my previous post was not addressed to you.
I removed the image you posted that showed a screen-shot of an illegal downloads site.
We have a policy in place relating to warnings and bans. Perhaps you ought to read it. Currently, you have 10 active warning points.
Who says it is an illegal download site?
Didn't I answer that in the first post?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And once again, I point out that one doesn't need to give any reason at all.
This is not a society where one must first supply a good reason to exercise their right to seek information.
The onus does not lie on me to explain myself; the onus lies on you to explain why my freedom to seek information warrants censorship.
I should clarify something: I have zero wish to view this footage. The very thought of doing so makes me ill. I speak of "my" rights from the stance of a Devil's Advocate.
But my personal take on the matter is not relevant here - nor is yours (nor Bells').
What's at stake is whether we encourage the institutionalization of the blocking of information - even if supposedly for the greater good.
To-wit: "I may disagree with what you [download] but I will defend to the last your right to [download] it."
- Evelyn Beatrice
Seriously? You can't possibly not know.
You're with Dave on this, then? Your "right" to access whatever you like whenever you like trumps any public good that might come from limiting the availability of a video like the one in question?
DaveC:
I notice that when you quoted me you chopped out half of the relevant sentence. Tellingly, you left out the part where I asked you what public good would be served by widely publicising this video or the killer's excuses. Why did you ignore that question? Can't think of anything?
Moreover, I have not actually advocated censorship as such. Rather, I have suggested that this kind of material ought not to be widely publicised, for example on social media like Facebook, Twitter or whatever. If you can't come up with a reason why the general public needs to see graphic footage of a mass shooting, taken by the killer himself, then my suggestion is that the public doesn't need to see it. So far, you've drawn a blank - indeed, refused to answer the question. Can you do better?
When you focus so much on individual rights, you risk losing sight of the interests of your nation as a community. Is it really so great to have more guns than people in your society? Is that a price worth paying for your Second Amendment? And what price is worth paying for your coveted "free speech" rights?
As a matter of fact, your right to seek information (as you put it) on various matters is already regulated by your government in many different respects.
I notice that when you quoted me you chopped out half of the relevant sentence. Tellingly, you left out the part where I asked you what public good would be served by widely publicising this video or the killer's excuses. Why did you ignore that question? Can't think of anything?
Actually, I have nowhere advocated total censorship. On the contrary, I have said that some people might well have legitimate, defensible reasons to access this material, as opposed to those who get some kind of visceral thrill from watching other people die, like it is a video game or something.
Moreover, I have not actually advocated censorship as such. Rather, I have suggested that this kind of material ought not to be widely publicised, for example on social media like Facebook, Twitter or whatever. If you can't come up with a reason why the general public needs to see graphic footage of a mass shooting, taken by the killer himself, then my suggestion is that the public doesn't need to see it. So far, you've drawn a blank - indeed, refused to answer the question. Can you do better?
Now and then in Australia we get public debate on whether Australia ought to have a Bill of Rights, like in the US Constitution. My personal opinion is that the issue we are discussing gives food for thought as to whether a Bill of Rights holding up "free speech" as an absolute individual right is really a good idea. Americans are often fixated on their "rights" as individuals, often waving their Constitution as they demand the unreasonable. Look at the problem with guns that you have due to that outdated Second Amendment of yours.
When you focus so much on individual rights, you risk losing sight of the interests of your nation as a community. Is it really so great to have more guns than people in your society? Is that a price worth paying for your Second Amendment? And what price is worth paying for your coveted "free speech" rights?
It sounds to me like it's the heart of the issue. You're heavily invested in your rights as an individual - so much so that you're willing to turn a blind eye to public harms in order to protect your hypothetical private goods.
So, identify the public good in widely publicising this information. If you can.
ThePirateBay is not in your face broadcasting like social media. It's a hub for information; a library of digital information that interconnects people globally.
So, if libraries are not bad, you must be assuming something else.
If you were trafficking contraband in your car, should that make the road illegal?
:EDIT:
Further to that, should people be denied computers and internet?
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you're asking me. Illegal for whom? Are you asking whether you should be free to drive on a road while you're carrying illegal contraband?
It depends.
Some people are prohibited from using computers or the internet, by force of law.
If you're asking me whether I think that, in general, computers and the internet should be banned, my answer is "No".
Does that help you?
Yeah, pretty much.
I just don't want to be seen as some white supremacist weirdo who downloaded a video; I wanted to know more exactly WTF was going on in the world when I woke up one f'ing morning.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
JamesR, that's the way quotes work. As you have pointed out to me, if anyone wants to reread the entire discussion it's there for review. Quotes are to emphasize the point being addressed.
I did answer it. I said it's none of your business. Wishing to exercise one's right to view world events does not need to be defended. You have no business questioning it.
JamesR don't follow Bella and Tiassa down this road. Gaslighting and well-poisoning is not conducive to good faith discussion.
I agree.
And this is where you step over the line. This is a microcosmic example of the larger problem.
You, et al, are implicitly accusing others (eg. Bw/S) of watching it for the thrill of death.
You have no business questioning Bw/S's motives - going so far as to assign your own motives - such that she has to defend them.
That is deplorable.
That is not your call to make.
Do not manipulate my stance the way Bells and Tiassa do.
You have not established why I must answer that question at all.
Your argument is of the form "since I, JamesR am of the opinion that it doesn't serve the public good, I am therefore of the opinion that nobody should get to see it unless they give me, JamesR a good reason."
No. I am not obliged to give you a good reason for watching something.
Indeed. A community is people.
When you focus so much on community, you risk the freedoms of individuals. And individual freedom is where it all starts. More to the point: it's where loss of freedom starts.
As above.
Loss of personal rights by appealing to some hypothetical public good is how erosion occurs. Eventually, the police state determines what's good for all. Go back and read "Animal Farm".