Are New Zealanders children?

[TheParser]

I have just read an article on the Politico website.


1. It says that the major media in New Zealand have agreed among themselves NOT to report certain facts of the killer's trial.


2. In this opinion piece, the author opines that this voluntary censorship is treating New Zealanders like children.


a. The author claims that the media fear that if there is any mention of certain aspects of "white nationalism," then New Zealanders will be unable to read the material and decide the validity of the material themselves.


(This very old man cannot link, so just google something like: Politico, "Why New Zealand's Press Just Put on Blinders for Its Biggest Story" by Jack Shafer.)

*****

In all fairness, most of the American media also fear that Americans cannot handle reading anything about "white nationalism," either. Facebook, for example, will ban anyone who discusses the topic. And that already goes for most Internet discussion forums.

Of course, I understand that many people support this ban. They sincerely feel that any discussion of that topic amounts to "hate speech," which should be suppressed. So I am guessing that they also support New Zealand's media's voluntary censorship.

 

[Lursa]

I cant say about the 'children' part but perhaps they look at the US example, a runaway train of inflammatory, often unsubstantiated publishing and the swallowing whole by entire segments of willfully uninformed population.

OTOH, you'd think they'd give their own population more credit for brains.

I had, in a happier, more naive past, for America's population.

 

[RAMOSS]

I cant say about the 'children' part but perhaps they look at the US example, a runaway train of inflammatory, often unsubstantiated publishing and the swallowing whole by entire segments of willfully uninformed population.

OTOH, you'd think they'd give their own population more credit for brains.

I had, in a happier, more naive past, for America's population.

It's not the general population thta they are worried about. It's about the people who look at it, and thing 'I'll go out and be infamous, as long as I want to die anyway'.

It is to discourage copycats who do it for infamy

 

[Lursa]

It's not the general population thta they are worried about. It's about the people who look at it, and thing 'I'll go out and be infamous, as long as I want to die anyway'.

It is to discourage copycats who do it for infamy

Ah.

They have the Internet and social media, right? It will be interesting to see if those outlets just fuel more dangerous speculation in that vacuum then.

 

[RAMOSS]

Ah.

They have the Internet and social media, right? It will be interesting to see if those outlets just fuel more dangerous speculation in that vacuum then.

A lot of the social media and internet is fueled by information from the News organizations, people see an article, and repeat it, with emotion and misinterpretation. The way things are structured, most international news orgs will get their info from the local news organizations, .. and if that is 'blacked out', it won't get much further. So, in NZ, you won't get 'who is xyz, thing you need to know' . I personally wonder if that's an approach that if we did it in the U.S. would stop much of the crazies running in for having their deaths have fame.

 

[Lursa]

A lot of the social media and internet is fueled by information from the News organizations, people see an article, and repeat it, with emotion and misinterpretation. The way things are structured, most international news orgs will get their info from the local news organizations, .. and if that is 'blacked out', it won't get much further. So, in NZ, you won't get 'who is xyz, thing you need to know' . I personally wonder if that's an approach that if we did it in the U.S. would stop much of the crazies running in for having their deaths have fame.

They can black out social media and the Internet? Wow. Sounds like China or NK.

 

[RAMOSS]

They can black out social media and the Internet? Wow. Sounds like China or NK.

I didn't say tht. I said that the lack of information from the media would have a similar effect, since it won't feed the crazies.

 

[Lursa]

I didn't say tht. I said that the lack of information from the media would have a similar effect, since it won't feed the crazies.

My point was that then they'll just invent stuff to fill in the gaps. But I have no personal experience with anything there, so it's just speculation.

 

[soylentgreen]

I have just read an article on the Politico website.


1. It says that the major media in New Zealand have agreed among themselves NOT to report certain facts of the killer's trial.


2. In this opinion piece, the author opines that this voluntary censorship is treating New Zealanders like children.


a. The author claims that the media fear that if there is any mention of certain aspects of "white nationalism," then New Zealanders will be unable to read the material and decide the validity of the material themselves.


(This very old man cannot link, so just google something like: Politico, "Why New Zealand's Press Just Put on Blinders for Its Biggest Story" by Jack Shafer.)

*****

In all fairness, most of the American media also fear that Americans cannot handle reading anything about "white nationalism," either. Facebook, for example, will ban anyone who discusses the topic. And that already goes for most Internet discussion forums.

Of course, I understand that many people support this ban. They sincerely feel that any discussion of that topic amounts to "hate speech," which should be suppressed. So I am guessing that they also support New Zealand's media's voluntary censorship.

How laughable can this be. let us all take notice of the certain facts that the media has agreed not to publiciise.
.Why New Zealand’s Press Just Put on Blinders for Its Biggest Story - POLITICO Magazine

Following the guidelines, the news organizations vow to limit coverage of statements “that actively champion white supremacist or terrorist ideology,” avoid quoting the accused killer’s “manifesto,” and suppress any “message, imagery, symbols” or hand signs like a Nazi salute made by the accused or his supporters in support of white supremacy. “Where the inclusion of such signals in any images is unavoidable, the relevant parts of the image shall be pixelated,” the guidelines add

Now you need to explain the worthiness of giving a white supremacist views a platform. Please do not use the same miserable lie your opinion link is trying in that new zealanders might be ignorant of such views. If you do then like the writer you expressing a lie to back a claim. New zealand has had white supremacist groups voicing their opinions for a long time and are quite aware of what they are capable of.

Again shall we take another look at the outright stupidity of this writer.

They regard New Zealanders as children who must be sheltered from the heinous and despicable lest they become tainted with its influence. That’s essentially the position New Zealand Chief Censor Shanks took when he banned the manifesto in March, saying that documents like it were aimed at a “vulnerable and susceptible” audience and designed to incite them to perform similar crimes. “There is content in [the manifesto] that points to means by which you can conduct other terrorist atrocities ... it could be seen as instructional,” Shanks said.

And was that not true? The very act of mass shooting was seen as instructional, let alone the rantings and manifesto of such people.
Poway synagogue shooting: the rise in deadly anti-Semitism, explained - Vox

Exactly six months apart, two different shooters went into American synagogues during services with an intent to kill Jews.....He repeatedly cites the Christchurch shooter, a man who killed 50 people at two mosques in New Zealand, as his inspiration.

Basically your argument is we should not only condone these views and allow them to be aired to become instructional for others who wish to kill people who attend anything but a christian church.


The author is an idiot there is no escaping that conclusion. He thinks that not reporting something is blinding the public. Yet the information is well known and sources abundant for white supremacist views. We have them appear on this very site and try to spread their hate.

This is not a case of "deciding the validity" of a group who have nothing valid to say. This is a case of once again new zealand demonstrating that hate is not tolerated and nor will it be given a platform.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

They can black out social media and the Internet? Wow. Sounds like China or NK.

Most countries, including those we think of as democratic, certainly have the capability of blocking at least parts of the Internet. (In practice, even China doesn't black out much of it: they just spy on users with far more interest than any other government does.)

 

[soylentgreen]

They can black out social media and the Internet? Wow. Sounds like China or NK.

No, because it is not motivated by the same reasoning as china or nk.

Facebook got itself into a lot of trouble for allowing the nz shooter to live stream his killing of muslims. They not only removed it but in contrition for being so slack they are now promising to actively ban any white supremacist hate views on their media channel.

If you consoider this a black out then you also need to give a good argument as to why you want people to air their views on genocide for certain minorities.

 

[Manc Skipper]

My point was that then they'll just invent stuff to fill in the gaps. But I have no personal experience with anything there, so it's just speculation.

People will then be aware that the crazy has made it up, since that "filler" information isn't available

 

[Lursa]

People will then be aware that the crazy has made it up, since that "filler" information isn't available

I dont really understand this response.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Facebook, for example, will ban anyone who discusses the topic. And that already goes for most Internet discussion forums.

Inaccurate. Facebook bans those who create pages and groups that SUPPORT white nationalism.
You can discuss it all day long.

 

[RAMOSS]

I dont really understand this response.

What he is saying is that what people don't know, they will make up to 'fill in the blanks'., and thus conspiracy theories are born.

 

[Lursa]

No, because it is not motivated by the same reasoning as china or nk.

Facebook got itself into a lot of trouble for allowing the nz shooter to live stream his killing of muslims. They not only removed it but in contrition for being so slack they are now promising to actively ban any white supremacist hate views on their media channel.

If you consoider this a black out then you also need to give a good argument as to why you want people to air their views on genocide for certain minorities.

Are New Zealanders that susceptible to violence based on such postings?

For better or for worse, in America we have a 1st Amendment so I cant say I believe in restricting those viewpoints, as much as I'd like them to be. But private sites can do what they choose.

 

[soylentgreen]

Are New Zealanders that susceptible to violence based on such postings?

For better or for worse, in America we have a 1st Amendment so I cant say I believe in restricting those viewpoints, as much as I'd like them to be. But private sites can do what they choose.

No, i would say new zealanders are not. But as the american who shot up a synagogue and claimed the new zealand shooting as inspiration demonstrates that some people are susceptible to violence based on such postings.

And in nz we also have the right to freedom of speech. By the fact that we have an independent press and unlike america a functioning democratic process that ensures such freedom.

The ban on that kind of information was an agreed ban not one forced by a government.

And private sites can do as they choose. However one really should question the authenticity and the intelligence of such sites. The good example of that is the site used to start this thread. There is a posting by someone who knows not what he is talking about.

 

[Kiwimac]

The accused's name was blocked in order to ensure he gets a fair trial.

 

[Grand Mal]

I have just read an article on the Politico website.


1. It says that the major media in New Zealand have agreed among themselves NOT to report certain facts of the killer's trial.


2. In this opinion piece, the author opines that this voluntary censorship is treating New Zealanders like children.


a. The author claims that the media fear that if there is any mention of certain aspects of "white nationalism," then New Zealanders will be unable to read the material and decide the validity of the material themselves.


(This very old man cannot link, so just google something like: Politico, "Why New Zealand's Press Just Put on Blinders for Its Biggest Story" by Jack Shafer.)

*****

In all fairness, most of the American media also fear that Americans cannot handle reading anything about "white nationalism," either. Facebook, for example, will ban anyone who discusses the topic. And that already goes for most Internet discussion forums.

Of course, I understand that many people support this ban. They sincerely feel that any discussion of that topic amounts to "hate speech," which should be suppressed. So I am guessing that they also support New Zealand's media's voluntary censorship.

Which facts? 'Certain facts' desn't leave any room for discussion.

 

[soylentgreen]

The accused's name was blocked in order to ensure he gets a fair trial.

You have got to be ****ing kidding.

Right!! Because there are so many mass murderers up for trial in nz that naming him would make him stand out from the crowd.

Tell me, what constitutes a fair trial for someone who is going to use that trial as a platform for his own ego? Do you think there is actually 12 people left in nz who are impartial?

 

[Kiwimac]

You have got to be ****ing kidding.

Right!! Because there are so many mass murderers up for trial in nz that naming him would make him stand out from the crowd.

Tell me, what constitutes a fair trial for someone who is going to use that trial as a platform for his own ego? Do you think there is actually 12 people left in nz who are impartial?

Do you want this wanker to get off on a technicality? I want him to have a fair trial and then have him put away for a very long time.

 

[Grand Mal]

Do you want this wanker to get off on a technicality? I want him to have a fair trial and then have him put away for a very long time.

Exactly. Dot the 'I's', cross the 'T's', and never let the guy see the sunshine again.

 

[Grand Mal]

You have got to be ****ing kidding.

Right!! Because there are so many mass murderers up for trial in nz that naming him would make him stand out from the crowd.

Tell me, what constitutes a fair trial for someone who is going to use that trial as a platform for his own ego? Do you think there is actually 12 people left in nz who are impartial?

I don't think the authorities, at this point, give a damn about anyone's morbid curiousity. Once the job's done they'll tell the whole story. We'll all just have to hold our water 'till then.

 

[Lursa]

No, i would say new zealanders are not. But as the american who shot up a synagogue and claimed the new zealand shooting as inspiration demonstrates that some people are susceptible to violence based on such postings.

And in nz we also have the right to freedom of speech. By the fact that we have an independent press and unlike america a functioning democratic process that ensures such freedom.

The ban on that kind of information was an agreed ban not one forced by a government.

And private sites can do as they choose. However one really should question the authenticity and the intelligence of such sites. The good example of that is the site used to start this thread. There is a posting by someone who knows not what he is talking about.

Aside from the petty slight against our democratic process, it doesnt sound any different than America. And Americans.

Yes, 'one really should' question the authenticity and the intelligence of such sites...doesnt mean enough Kiwis or Americans do.

 

[Fishking]

I didn't say tht. I said that the lack of information from the media would have a similar effect, since it won't feed the crazies.

Wrong...it will make it worse because they will know there is cencoring going on and they will fill in the blanks with w/e they want, and there won’t be any information to contradict it.