Posts by Neil
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Personally I wasn’t looking at this as a free speech vs censorship issue. I just think excluding the public from accessing the manifesto won’t disrupt the type of internet/social media radicalisation happening with this type of white supremist.
-
Legal Beagle: Why the censor's total ban…, in reply to Simon Armstrong,
You have read Bert Potter? I went to school with victims of Bert Potter and consider the idea of studying his thoughts vile and inhumane.
I read what he said as reported in the media which gave me an insight into his warped logic. I was making a distinction between reading the manifesto and watching the video. I have no problem with the video being banned as objectionable but can’t see how banning the manifesto will do anything to prevent future acts.
-
Legal Beagle: Why the censor's total ban…, in reply to BenWilson,
I would prefer that until the assault rifle buyback and amnesty is completed, that no one still in possession of one legally gets any stupid ideas that could have been prevented by the simple expedient of the revocation of something that is highly objectionable anyway.
If there are people out there who are thinking of acting similarly I’m not sure that having access to the manifesto or not is going to make a difference either way to them. Brevik’s manifesto is available and probably lots of other similar material.
-
I still have no idea how you would consider the manifesto deserving of separate treatment to the video.
It would be disrespectful of those killed and their families and friends to show them being killed.
I have read things said by Bert Potter advocating child sex abuse to find out how he could possibly justify his actions but I would never want to see those actions.
-
Legal Beagle: Why the censor's total ban…, in reply to Fen Tex,
I think you may be mistaken – people tending towards contemplating crimes, but not yet finding sufficient conviction to, may be more susceptible to the suggestions of someone who has demonstrated action and hopes to path the way by example.
Possibly, although the actions and motives of the Christchurch terrorist are now already well known. Anyone considering doing something similar will know where to get the manifesto online anyway along with other similar material.
-
A blanket ban over-values the manifesto’s influence on white supremacists, they will find inspiration where they need to, if in fact they need to, and denies the public an insight into how these people think.
Some thing like prosecuting people for using this material to incite hatred and violence would make more sense.
-
Hard News: These things we must now change, in reply to andin,
Yes our societies were starting to break apart, but we were all just expected to smile and carry on take on heavier workloads, less pay, increasing and changing populations and neglected yet more expensive social institutions. A recipe for disaster.
Although people like Brevik and the Christchurch terrorist didn’t have hard lives, they had no personal reason to feel dispossess but for some reason developed elaborate theories of cultural dispossession.
Whereas there are people who have indeed come from catastrophic society breakdown and suffered extraordinary trauma plus have had to find refuge in a very different society who don’t wind up killers.
-
Mulling over the free speech issue I’m not very clear about how our concepts of influence work.
The men responsible for these acts of terror weren’t just exposed on the internet to hateful like minds they were also exposed – like all of us – to a far greater amount of messages of liberal tolerance.
So why do a small number of men choose one set of angry messages from a small group of people and are immune to everything else?
On the whole I agree with Pinker that liberal values have won out to a large degree and people are much better off for that. But despite all the positive work by many there still appears to be a very strong hold out impervious to that message. And not just impervious but actively hostile.
There’s something perhaps that predisposes some men to this sort of messaging.
-
What sort of atonement do we want to see from our politicians?
-
The white clothing that Tarrant was wearing in court is called a stitched gown. It’s an item of clothing especially designed to be very difficult to rip and turn into a ligature. He’s being kept safe from himself as well as from others. Our system.