New Zealand Killer Trial

[FortuitousFluke]

I think this is a long overdue wider conversation in general about how we deal with media of a gross offensive nature and how we categorise it.

There's an argument, which I support in this instance, that it is grossly offensive to show the victims of this massacre. There is also the counter argument that it is showing the true nature of the event without influence or narrative which is essential.

The question comes does the footage of this nature inspire or repulse and educate. Holocaust footage has been used very effectively for the latter.

Happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the issue here isn't around sharing things that are grossly offensive, it's more about glamourising a terrorist act, especially given the comments he's alleged to have tagged the video with.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I think one of the biggest issues with say, suppressing the manuscript, is that it removes our ability to determine whether what the mainstream media tells us about it is true. Which is critical.

Some people reject anything that isn't reported by the mainstream media. I have, right now in another thread, people trying to cast me as a paranoid nutjob because I suggested that the CIA have worked against European interests. The CIA! Without the ability to assess sources ourselves, anything other than what the mainstream media says is true is relegated to the realm of foreign news sources (actively worked against by our own governments) and obscure news sources and chat rooms.

We have to be able to judge things for ourselves because the mainstream media are demonstrably not objective.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the issue here isn't around sharing things that are grossly offensive, it's more about glamourising a terrorist act, especially given the comments he's alleged to have tagged the video with.

If it's the same individual in both articles (likely) then yes, there's more to it than simply sharing the video. We don't know what those comments are (other than "target acquired" so we can presume they're pretty unpleasant). However, I think it's reasonable to worry about the wider issue of censorship. There are plenty at both the State and non-State levels who want to use this tragedy to shutdown conversations and material they don't agree simply politically or culturally.

 

[Sankari]

I see no reason to restrict the manuscript, it's pretty ordinary stuff. You'll find worse in the average thread on 8chan.

 

[Semple]

Not only must justice be done it must also be seen to be done.

Hope he goes away for life

This really.

Whilst censoring his name/trial etc, might prevent a spread of any propaganda, the attack was made very public, and the public will want to know that justice is being done.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

If it's the same individual in both articles (likely) then yes, there's more to it than simply sharing the video. We don't know what those comments are (other than "target acquired" so we can presume they're pretty unpleasant). However, I think it's reasonable to worry about the wider issue of censorship. There are plenty at both the State and non-State levels who want to use this tragedy to shutdown conversations and material they don't agree simply politically or culturally.

I don't disagree on a wider level, there's a really fine line to be struck between positive censorship and infringing rights, the difficulty is that once you open that box it's really hard to close it again. I don't particularly want to see people ending up in prison because they've shared something deemed offensive, however I think in terms of things like the video we're talking about there is a public safety argument that could legitimately be made around not wanting that to be available in the public domain. Again though, finding that line is a real problem at the moment.

This really.

Whilst censoring his name/trial etc, might prevent a spread of any propaganda, the attack was made very public, and the public will want to know that justice is being done.

The media need to take a strong leadership role here, I was trying to remember the coverage of the Brevik trial and I seem to recall they struck a pretty impressive balance between reporting the facts and making sure not to offer a platform.

 

[Jonny ///M]

I woke up that morning to the Mrs telling me about it in bed and by lunchtime I had saw the videos in work off someones Whatsapp group.

To me it was like watching someone play CSGO with weapon skins, didn't feel real that it was so easy to go in and kill so many people. I also wondered why he was able to walk around the streets outside for a good 15 minutes I think it was and then drive away from the scene. I'd hope armed response would have a bullet in his head if that was in this country.

I don't have kids but I would not want them to see it which would be hard to do in a school playground I imagine.

I remember seeing the video of the Russian guy who was being stabbed and all sorts by two guys years ago and that has stuck with me.

 

[Thecaferacer]

Happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the issue here isn't around sharing things that are grossly offensive, it's more about glamourising a terrorist act, especially given the comments he's alleged to have tagged the video with.

Nothing to correct at all. I think the issue is how to implement a ban when there are various motives ie, news reporting, glamourising it, sick entertainment, genuine use, recruitment for the other side etc.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

I woke up that morning to the Mrs telling me about it in bed and by lunchtime I had saw the videos in work off someones Whatsapp group.

To me it was like watching someone play CSGO with weapon skins, didn't feel real that it was so easy to go in and kill so many people. I also wondered why he was able to walk around the streets outside for a good 15 minutes I think it was and then drive away from the scene. I'd hope armed response would have a bullet in his head if that was in this country.

I don't have kids but I would not want them to see it which would be hard to do in a school playground I imagine.

I remember seeing the video of the Russian guy who was being stabbed and all sorts by two guys years ago and that has stuck with me.

I've specifically avoided the videos related to the Christchurch attack, I remember being shown footage of an Al Qaeda beheading video when I was at school and I can still picture it in my head today. There's a small, very small part of me that is intrigued as to what it's like, in the same way as you might look at a car crash as you drive past, but I decided many years ago not to seek this stuff out, in respect for myself but also the people involved and their loved ones. Not to mention to avoid offering the killer the platform he was seeking.

 

[VincentHanna]

That's why I never watch any of the videos, I don't need that stuff in my brain.

 

[doodah]

Someone sent the video to me. No thanks.

 

[Uther]

Does life mean life in NZ? Be a shame if he got out in 30 years or so.

 

[dowie]

news of this incident is being reported very differently in different parts of the world.
Indian Times has reported it as a counter terrorism operation that led to the death of 49 terrorists!!

That sounds like some BS spread via whatsapp/social media. There is quite a big fake news issue in Pakistan (and India).

I don’t know why you’re reposting an allegation like that without a link though.

 

[The Geezer]

Why is there a debate on whether his video and / manuscript should be banned.

It's simple we ban all ISIS material after all they kill too against their sick world view, so why doesn't this terrorist get the same ?

 

[ttaskmaster]

The question comes does the footage of this nature inspire or repulse and educate. Holocaust footage has been used very effectively for the latter.

The difference is twofold - Firstly, the Holocaust footage is rapidly fading out of the 'living memory' bracket for most people.
Secondly, with today's mass media, this sort of thing can be spread around the world in minutes, and there's a lot of it. People do get inured to seeing these things, especially those who have no direct experiences to be triggered.

 

[RaohNS]

Why is there a debate on whether his video and / manuscript should be banned.

It's simple we ban all ISIS material after all they kill too against their sick world view, so why doesn't this terrorist get the same ?

It depends on the content of the two. I'd imagine ISIS material be to direct attacks how to do them etc maybe the odd bomb making lesson. Whereas this scumbag presented an explanation as opposed to "incitement"

 

[Sankari]

It depends on the content of the two. I'd imagine ISIS material be to direct attacks how to do them etc maybe the odd bomb making lesson. Whereas this scumbag presented an explanation as opposed to "incitement"

^^ This.

 

[Thecaferacer]

Why is there a debate on whether his video and / manuscript should be banned.

It's simple we ban all ISIS material after all they kill too against their sick world view, so why doesn't this terrorist get the same ?

ISIS, National Action etc are proscribed groups so the material is illegal to own or share, same with documents like the anarchists cookbook or Inspire magazine.

Until it's proscribed it can't be banned unless it breaks other laws

 

[Thecaferacer]

The difference is twofold - Firstly, the Holocaust footage is rapidly fading out of the 'living memory' bracket for most people.
Secondly, with today's mass media, this sort of thing can be spread around the world in minutes, and there's a lot of it. People do get inured to seeing these things, especially those who have no direct experiences to be triggered.

Holocaust photos were available almost immediately after the war and were a coup de grace to Holocaust deniers.

Anybody being inspired by mass slaughter of innocent people was already down that rabbit hole.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Does life mean life in NZ? Be a shame if he got out in 30 years or so.

He says that he expects to be released from prison in around twenty years similarly to how Nelson Mandela was once his people were restored to power in South Africa (this is HIS interpretation, to be absolutely clear). Or else if non-White people take over, to die in prison knowing he did his best.

Why is there a debate on whether his video and / manuscript should be banned.

It's simple we ban all ISIS material after all they kill too against their sick world view, so why doesn't this terrorist get the same ?

For me, legality is not an interesting part of a debate on whether or not something should be done. Right or wrong, social positive or social negative, the law is usually a bad place to begin in such discussions, imo.