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.

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.

Pretty much this: 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

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

Is /r/TopMindsOfHN a thing yet?

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

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Rouge is french for red and is usually used to describe makeup.

And this isn’t a one or the other thing, NZ has banned that crap and rallied around the families. A huge amount of money has been raise of which the total is still rising. The whole country stopped on Friday for a national call to prayer followed by 2 minutes silence.

Other countries might be making a big deal about the banning but it’s not the key headline here.

My understanding is most young Chinese know nothing about Tiananmen Square because the Chinese government has in fact been very successful in censoring it within their borders.

NZ may have quite a ways to go until their internet censorship regime is as effective as China’s great firewall though.

I haven't read the manifesto and I have no desire to, but I still fear a government that would imprison me for reading it more than I fear terrorists. Terrorists are rare; such a government is an ever present threat.

I do care about what everyone has to say. I'm interested to access any real footage of the reality to cross-check what we are told, and make my own opinion.

If people are expecting to stop violence by censoring information, they might first look at banning firearms...

There is a non trivial portion of the population that will resist informational control attempts at all costs.

Information is power, and it isn't always pleasant. The greatest failing of our time is the power we've built up to engage in institutional perception management.

To deal with this sort of radicalization, hiding it in the dark is the single worst thing you can do. You end up lending it moral credibility through the Streisand effect, and amplify the "unjustness" in that person's manifesto from whatever craziness it was, and add on top of it "Oh, wow. The government is willing to black hole you as a citizen."

I appreciate the logic behind contagion theory, but I reject the conclusion it leads to. Memes, like viruses can only be countered through a sufficient and omnipresent enough psycho-societal immune response. That means everyone needs exposure, everyone needs to process it, and if there are quote "vulnerable" populations, it's up to their immediate social circles to take care of business in terms of either A) rehabilitating them, or as a last resort B) informing authorities before anyone gets hurt.

The hardware/software for institutional perception management has no place in a civilized society. The policies that encourage it should be met with outrage and scorn.

You lift up your society when you can hold up the deeds of it's worst members and state "They chose this. They felt X way. How they lived led them and those around them to a grisly end. We will continue. We will thrive. We will not break. We will learn. We will care, and we will adapt."

We live in a time filled with radicalism and distrust; the only way to get past it is to air it all from the rooftops, and rely on each other to come to terms with it's impact, and be able to discuss what it means while building a common worldview in the process.

Change only happens when we can admit there is a problem. Covering our eyes doesn't do that. I understand a lot of people feel that by breaking such a taboo as resorting to violence should be treated with immediate erasure from the public eye, but the having to resort to violence is a message in and of itself, and will be a constant threat in a free society. Note that the free society should always be more important than the absence of threat, because safety only truly exists on the good will of a free people.

Vigilance is justified. Denial and petty acts of revenge are not.

I like this term, I think it conceptualizes some of my looser thoughts about how we ought to respond to influences in life.

The thought process I see acted out by our institutions often looks like this: Declaring Foo is a bad influence that causes Bar, therefore we should engage in social engineering and propaganda against foo and/or bar.

Forget that the causal relationship between foo and bar can be tenuous, or that bar's badness is often motivated reasoning. The entire process just leaves people worse off to navigate the influences in their life.

Sorta related anecdote: When I was a child we had an anti-drug program at school. They taught us some of the ways "bad guys" would pressure us into doing drugs or drinking. I wasn't the only one to notice it was the exact same way parents, teachers and the media tell us to do the "good" things. ..... That put a resentful streak in my life that still exists to this day.

The rise of facist groups has really made me realize how disproportionate 'free speech' can be.

The first example that comes to mind is police presence at protests against them. If 100 of them show up and 1000 counter protestors show up then the onus is on the police to protect their protest.

The minorities targeted by these hate groups are at a disadvantage in so many ways, they are more likely targets of the police, they are more likely to already have convictions so the risks are higher in the legal system. They are much more likely to be killed by the police.

free speech is not necessarily a level playing field and these groups are both aware and weaponize that.

You can measure this by simply plotting the number of various social media followings such voices have, and plotting them against time and marking notable appearances.

If someone is so radical they reject all authority, whether it's political or scientific or religious, and they can justify any conspiracy that fits their world view, then they have constructed an immunity to information.

Whatever evidence you give, no matter how hot your take is, no matter what your message or framing is, hosting such voices on your platform becomes an enabler.

I'm not for expanded censorship of ideology or debate. I'm for better prosecution of incitement of violence. This should also include spreading of false information designed to create a false sense of distress and push people to violence.

Whether you think this applies to the alt-right, ISIS, or antifa doesn't matter. What's important is combating the rampant incitement of violence that social media is enabling.

Is there any scientific public study available to support your claim ? Plotting followers over time and correlating by media appearance time isn't doable for most citizen. Do you have any proof, source, concrete results to share with everyone ?

I didn't want to define what a radical is, or what the new incitement of violence which includes indirect incitement would be. I wanted to focus on my point that this is about interpretation of an existing law that forbid certain speech, and not about imposing new restrictions on constitutional rights.

Personally, I think it's not right that we differentiate between "Go kill them" and "They're coming to kill us. Keep your guns close. Protect your family. They are doing horrible things. War is imminent. Something will happen soon. We're in danger. You and your family will be killed."

The second example is just as much an incitement of violence as the first. But it is not only legal, it is widely practiced.

This is "won't someone rid me of this turbulent priest?" on a massive scale.

I think this is the only option that ticks all the boxes for the solution I've been trying to find in my head.

Those are the words that were used to accuse Chelsea Clinton of being responsible for the attack - which means according to those who confronted Chelsea Clinton she would meet the standard you have just set.

Do you see the problem?

Violence, other than in direct physical self defense, should be the exclusive domain of the state.

This should be obvious but how does your law work in a situation where, in fact, there is a war and there are people coming to kill us. Or are you naively believing that we live in some sort of utopian post-conflict era, in which self defence against armed groups will never be necessary?

Self defense is legally defined. It's not about a general fear of future outcomes. It's about preventing immediate physical harm. If you're urgently telling people to defend themselves from someone not even in the room, and is actually just a description of a group of people, then that's not self defense in any meaningful way. That's also incitement of violence.

This isn't a theoretical concern. Winston Churchill is an example of a politician who was warning of the dangers of Nazi Germany much earlier than other people were, he was nearly alone in the beginning at a time when other politicians were trying to make peace with Hitler or were openly unconcerned. Your proposal could easily have criminalised Churchill at the time when Britain needed him most.

However, I think there is a distinction between war as a political platform, and incitement of violence. Even when Churchill campaigned for war, he campaigned for the United Kingdom to wage war. He was calling for something that is legal.

The people who inspire the terrorists are not just campaigning for lawful war. They are inciting the masses to commit violence against civilians.

We should be able to differentiate Churchill and Bin Laden.

When it comes down to it, there will always be a situation in which a law makes the right thing illegal. Drunk driving a dying person to the hospital in an emergency is illegal but it's not always wrong. I think laws should aim to maximize benefit and minimize harm rather than stay ideologically pure.

In that light I think in this day and age, it's much more important to disable the ISISs, the KKKs, and other inciters, than it is to enable the Churchills. It's a value judgment here, but how many Churchills are we expecting in the next 100 years? Because terrorists are here right now.

You literally don't believe in democracy. Not that you are obliged to, but it's interesting if you realize it?

The New Zealand authorities have essentially made it illegal to disagree that that the video and manifesto is valid justification for taking away rights and freedoms because informed disagreement would require to view the content which is punishable with a sentence up to 14 years. Do you really not see the problem here?

If the video and manifesto is used as justification to take rights a privileges away from the citizens of New Zealand then its only reasonable that the citizens have the right to scrutinize their governments actions by viewing and sharing video and manifesto. Accountability is still necessary regardless how unpleasant it may be.

Of course it would be unwise to believe that he told the truth about his aims in his manifesto. Even if we could figure out what he really wanted, figuring that out and then doing the opposite would not be a rational way to respond to an incident like this.

This is why censorship is so dangerous. I immediately thought of 3 attacks following NZ that could be interpreted as reprisals. I was completely unsurprised to see that no further details have been released in the week between then and now. We only know that the perpetrators were migrants from troubled parts of the world, and were already known to authorities - having developed criminal records since their arrival. A priest was stabbed in Canada, 3 people were killed in the Netherlands (3 more wounded), a bus in Italy with 52 children onboard was set ablaze. The spokesman for ISIS called for attacks after several months of radio silence, Erdoğan has been stirring his people up (which has historically resulted in violence).

Were you unaware of these events, or do you consider them normal? If you were unaware of them, do you think that is a result of selective reporting? I can tell you that absolutely no in depth reporting has occurred - no effort beyond that of news wire copy-paste.

Who cares what he wanted, what his manifesto said. He isn't some wise person we look up to, he isn't a fortune teller. He's a sick person with a twisted view on our world. He doesn't get to say what our future looks like.

So pointing out hes a lunatic only highlights the insanity of the NZ government.

If you want to criticize their response I think you need to show how your proposal would prevent further radicalism. The people involved in the white power movement are dangerous if enough of them get together. That's essentially what happened in Germany in the 1920s.

The video is a graphic video of a massacre and simultaneously propaganda produced by the perpetrator of that massacre. It is a peculiar idea that we as a society cannot legitimately decide that this footage is objectionable in the same way child porn is objectionable, and make it illegal to share it. It is not simply a deeply disturbing act being shown, it also shares with child pornography the property that the footage that could not have been produced without devastating harm to the people involved.

The manifesto I feel less strongly about; I read it myself but would never watch the video.

I agree with you, but a disturbing number of people on HN think that images of child sexual abuse should not be illegal.

It's easy to find these comments:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5782697

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486398#5487425

This whole thread is fucked up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5825087

A bunch of comments in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4495914#4497226

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736545

There are literally hundreds of comments on HN from a range of accounts defending the posession of images of child sexual abuse.

Wonder if any of the people commenting there have kids of their own.

No system is perfect but fuck me, you’re taking it to the extreme when you’re essentially defending child porn...

It depends on what you consider extreme I guess. I am a parent. In the past 10 years, 1470 Queensland parents saw their children prosecuted as paedophiles [0]. The kids were sexting each other of course.

To me that's beyond extreme, it borders on insanity. That may be because I come from a time when sharing a picture with your mates of your naked mud covered daughter being hosed off by her mother was considered perfectly fine. Now that same picture gets people looking at you suspiciously. The current moral panic about pedo's and pictures makes me wonder if one of the most iconic pictures of my time [1] could be published today.

Then there is the case of the fellow gets a criminal record for possessing Simpson cartoons [2]. OK, I get they weren't tasteful cartons - but a criminal record prevents you from doing all sorts of things, such as taking overseas holiday or working as a public servant. I know there weren't tasteful because I've had people email those cartoons (they are jokes which some found funny). The idea of me being banned from travelling to most overseas countries because they were in my Inbox was no laughing matter.

I have not heard anybody say anything in support of child porn, which would be my definition of defending it. I'm not sure what your definition is, which again makes me nervous - in fact I would be very nervous if I still had kids at the sexting age. What I have head a lot of people say is "hang on, you are criminalising the possession of images here, and that seems like a dangerous road do go down". And with the benefit of hindsight, they were right.

I get some delight in watching people twist themselves into knots to justify their positions, and as it happens my favourite example was child porn. There was a time when a prime minister ask his communications minister to implement a internet censorship filter to protect us Australians from the bad stuff out there. They characterised it as only preventing the worst of the worst. They were both practising Christians, and their undoing was "the worst of the worst" included things like the _Peace Pill Handbook_ (which deals with assisted suicide), so they had grey armies preparing for the filter by inviting hackers to their old people homes to instruct them on how to by-pass the filter. But that didn't come out until later. At first the example of the worst of the worst always trotted out by the Minster was child porn - something nobody could disagree should be blocked. But at the very end the Federal Police let slip child porn would not in fact be blocked by the filter, at least not a first. It was far too useful in tracking the people abusing the kids. So the Federal Police managed to convince a pair of Christian politicians on a censorship mission that letting little child porn float around the internet was actually a good idea. The irony was absolutely delicious.

[0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/8511174 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc#/media/File:... [2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/233562

Read the linked threads. There are people literally defending the possession of large quantities of images of child sexual abuse.

I'm being really careful with my language here: these are not people defending a single innocent image of your naked child playing in the bath. These are people defending possession of thousands of images of children being raped.

We can differentiate between how religions and the groups within behave in practice, which is why we can ban some terrorist groups using religion while not banning all religious groups.

The basis of white supremacy consists of violence and terror. Yet for some reason we consider propaganda spread by them to be covered under free speech.

How?

Can you really define an utterly objective definition of hateful manifesto that captures what you want but does not also capture the Koran, or for that matter, the Old Testament?

I would be extremely surprised if so. Those books have a lot of nasty stuff in them. Moreover if you go look at newspaper comments sections reporting on the NZ attacks, a disturbingly high number of people have concluded that Islam is not a religion of peace and that the Koran does in fact radicalise people (helped along by radical preachers). They can point to many terrorist attacks as evidence.

There probably isn't any standard of censorship or free speech that isn't twisted in self contradiction of the form "any violent text which leads to terrorism which is sufficiently popular is ok".

It's been far more effective, and without any apparent downsides, than I expected.