New Zealand - Christchurch Mosque shooting, dead & injured reported, 15 March 2019

[human]

In other words, they don't have a free press because the gov't can censor them unlike in a country with Freedom of the Press. I prefer a freer country.

I really think this conversation can go into absurdity. The censorship in the US can be documented on and on.Think of the Kennedy assassination. Really, it would derail this thread. I am off to watch SNL, now

 

[glamourkitty1922]

Are you in the US? You’re ranked 45th.

Our media can print anything they want, they really can't even be sued for making mistakes. They can post video of crimes and manifestos etc and there is nothing the gov't can do. Unlike New Zealand. Our gov't cannot remove anything from the internet without a warrant because of due process, and they can be refused under freedom of press. Anyone can be the press in the US, unlike many other countries. We are not 45 except due to bias on the page reporting it. What is censored in our press? Nothing.

 

[sunnynz]

What about his postings. And what about all the traveling he did to what appears to be third world countries. He’s an australian living in new zealand for 2 years and no one thought that odd.
In hindsight seems the red flags were ignored.

I can’t imagine having a neighbor doing this for years and not being suspicious.

Not at all, over 70% of kiwis have a passport and we have a lot of immigrants/expats/whatever you want to call them living here.

Overseas travel is common and embraced.

 

[human]

Our media can print anything they want, they really can't even be sued for making mistakes. They can post video of crimes and manifestos etc and there is nothing the gov't can do. Unlike New Zealand. Our gov't cannot remove anything from the internet without a warrant because of due process, and they can be refused under freedom of press. Anyone can be the press in the US, unlike many other countries. We are not 45 except due to bias on the page reporting it. What is censored in our press? Nothing.

Lol.certain papers are not allowed at Presidential press conferences, for imstance. On and on

 

[glamourkitty1922]

Lol.certain papers are not allowed at Presidential press conferences, for imstance. On and on

Those papers are not censored and when Obama tried to oust Fox News, other news agencies made him back down. It's been tried by every president and the media wins. The US govt cannot forbid anyone from printing what they want.

 

[sunnynz]

[QUOTE="glamourkitty1922, post: 14921519, member: 91422]We are not 45 except due to bias on the page reporting it. What is censored in our press? Nothing.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, must just be like a totally made up index. Not internally recognised at all.

My mistake.

 

[CSIDreamer]

I really think this conversation can go into absurdity. The censorship in the US can be documented on and on.Think of the Kennedy assassination. Really, it would derail this thread. I am off to watch SNL, now

I think it already has. These countries are completely different. If you don't want to live in New Zealand, then don't. Same with any other country.

The issue is the gunman and the victims.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Yeah, must just be like a totally made up index. Not internally recognised at all.

My mistake.

I don't think it's totally made up and as a US citizen, I'll admit we have some room for improvement in that regard.

It doesn't feel right to continuously knock the laws and wishes of NZ. NZ is not the US and they have a different way of doing things. I respect their autonomy.

 

[zencompass]

I appreciate the discussion about not wanting censorship and the protection of freedom of speech and I agree with you.

Are the lines which cross censorship and free press blurred when it comes to incitement of hate and encouragement of violence?

How do we treat groups of people who gather in a public place to blare out their messages of hate or inciting violence?

What if these messages were blared out with a megaphone at our kids' parks as opposed to the kids reading it on the internet?

How is it different from the extreme hateful and violent posts on social media?

Law enforcement does monitor some of the chatrooms that draw individuals because of the extreme views. What would a spectrum (of possible to probable terrorists) look like in order for the police to take action against a poster there, even by surveillance?

Where is the "line drawn" and how is it drawn and what are your opinions as to what "crosses the line" when it comes to hate/violent/inciting posts?

 

[squid]

Yeah, must just be like a totally made up index. Not internally recognised at all.

Reporters without Borders does not rank freedom of speech according to the US legal definition. They probably have a definition somewhere but I could not find it right offhand.

You guys are talking apples and oranges.

 

[cobalt sky]

2018 World Press Freedom Index | RSF

NZ is ranked 8th in the world, US 45th, for freedom of press. This takes into account everything from government control to big business control over what is portrayed and reported in media.

NZ has a press which is largely free to do as they please, except when the government is required to step in, like to stop the spread of a terrorist’s manifesto. A one off incident that is unprecedented and necessary.

Congrats on #8 NZ!

I'm actually not surprised that the US is 45th. There are many facets to "freedom of press". Fair, unbiased, responsible reporting AFTER taking the time to research and make sure your facts are straight is far more important to me than the media having the ability to publish whatever they want. When this is lacking, by default you have censorship IMO. I could write pages and pages about this topic but this is not the appropriate thread so I will leave it at that.

As for relevance to WS, I can't tell you how many times I have become angry and/or frustrated at MSM and their poor and even sometimes irresponsible reporting on the cases we follow here.

 

[Judith Sleuth]

Reporters without Borders does not rank freedom of speech according to the US legal definition. They probably have a definition somewhere but I could not find it right offhand.

You guys are talking apples and oranges.

The standards sound pretty universal, afaict. Does the NZ shooter blame the media in his rants? Honest question. I’ve been out of the loop today. Sorry if I’ve missed it in the thread. I’m still catching up. ~JS

“The Index ranks 180 countries and regions according to the level of freedom available to journalists. It is a snapshot of the media freedom situation based on an evaluation of pluralism, independence of the media, quality of legislative framework and safety of journalists in each country and region. It does not rank public policies even if governments obviously have a major impact on their country’s ranking. Nor is it an indicator of the quality of journalismin each country or region.”

“The degree of freedom available to journalists in 180 countries and regions is determined by pooling the responses of experts to a questionnaire devised by RSF. This qualitative analysis is combined with quantitative data on abuses and acts of violence against journalists during the period evaluated. The criteria used in the questionnaire are pluralism, media independence, media environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and the quality of the infrastructure that supports the production of news and information. Click here for more information.”

The World Press Freedom Index | Reporters without borders

 

[cobalt sky]

I appreciate the discussion about not wanting censorship and the protection of freedom of speech and I agree with you.

Are the lines which cross censorship and free press blurred when it comes to incitement of hate and encouragement of violence?

How do we treat groups of people who gather in a public place to blare out their messages of hate or inciting violence?

What if these messages were blared out with a megaphone at our kids' parks as opposed to the kids reading it on the internet?

How is it different from the extreme hateful and violent posts on social media?

Law enforcement does monitor some of the chatrooms that draw individuals because of the extreme views. What would a spectrum (of possible to probable terrorists) look like in order for the police to take action against a poster there, even by surveillance?

Where is the "line drawn" and how is it drawn and what are your opinions as to what "crosses the line" when it comes to hate/violent/inciting posts?

BBM. I can't speak for NZ or anywhere else but here in the US it is very, very, VERY complicated. And I don't even know where to start with this. What is hate? What is racism? What is bigotry? And who decides? One would think that the answers should be very clear. But it is no longer clear. Especially since words associated with these things have been hijacked and weaponized for inappropriate and sometimes nefarious purposes and also to further agendas as well as to silence people that have differing thoughts. So yeah, there's a lot to say about this but again, not the right place so I'll leave it at that for now. All imo.

 

[Inthedetails]

(I don't want to interupt the thread but does anyone know if WS has a thread started for today's train shooting in the Netherlands? I don't want to discuss that case here, but just direct me to the thread, if you know.)

 

[otto]

I'm guessing you found it, but if not:

Holland - Number of people injured in Tram shooting in Utrecht possible terrorism, 18 March 2019

 

[Elley Mae]

BBM. I can't speak for NZ or anywhere else but here in the US it is very, very, VERY complicated. And I don't even know where to start with this. What is hate? What is racism? What is bigotry? And who decides? One would think that the answers should be very clear. But it is no longer clear. Especially since words associated with these things have been hijacked and weaponized for inappropriate and sometimes nefarious purposes and also to further agendas as well as to silence people that have differing thoughts. So yeah, there's a lot to say about this but again, not the right place so I'll leave it at that for now. All imo.

Very good. Thanks

 

[cujenn81]

The accused gunman plans to represent himself in court - raising concerns he could attempt to turn a trial into a platform for his beliefs.

The duty lawyer who represented him in court confirmed he was no longer acting for him. He said the accused appeared to be lucid and was not mentally unstable – other than the extreme views that he held.

"I suspect that he won't shy away from publicity, and that will probably be the way he runs the trial. The job of the trial judge will be to deal with that. But it's not a place for any views to be put forward. It's simply there to determine innocence or guilt. The court is not going to be very sympathetic to him if he wants to use the trial to express his own views."

Christchurch mosque shootings: Brenton Tarrant to represent himself in court

Dylan Roof initially advised the court that he planned to represent himself. I remember there was a lot of the same worry... (that he would attempt to use the court as a platform and/or make a mockery of the court proceedings.) Thankfully, in Roof's case, the judge ruled that he couldn't legally represent himself because the death penalty was on the table. I hope the NZ court is also able to prevent this lowlife from representing himself, as well.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Dylan Roof initially advised the court that he planned to represent himself. I remember there was a lot of the same worry... (that he would attempt to use the court as a platform and/or make a mockery of the court proceedings.) Thankfully, in Roof's case, the judge ruled that he couldn't legally represent himself because the death penalty was on the table. I hope the NZ court is also able to prevent this lowlife from representing himself, as well.

It appears he has the right to represent himself.

"The information in this section of the Ministry of Justice’s website will help you understand how you can represent yourself when defending a criminal charge in the High Court or appealing a judicial decision that was made in a lower court, to the High Court."

Representing yourself in a criminal case in the High Court | New Zealand Ministry of Justice

He will still have to follow the rules of Court and the Judge will stop him from saying anything inappropriate.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

Dylan Roof initially advised the court that he planned to represent himself. I remember there was a lot of the same worry... (that he would attempt to use the court as a platform and/or make a mockery of the court proceedings.) Thankfully, in Roof's case, the judge ruled that he couldn't legally represent himself because the death penalty was on the table. I hope the NZ court is also able to prevent this lowlife from representing himself, as well.

From what I read, prisoners don't get a taxpayer paid defense lawyer, they get a bill. Lots of people defend themselves in court to stop bankrupting their family members. They have that right, so I guess he will be defending himself. Going to court without a lawyer | New Zealand Ministry of Justice

 

[sunnynz]

From what I read, prisoners don't get a taxpayer paid defense lawyer, they get a bill. Lots of people defend themselves in court to stop bankrupting their family members. They have that right, so I guess he will be defending himself. Going to court without a lawyer | New Zealand Ministry of Justice

He would be entitled to legal aid which means free legal representation paid for by the government. Can I get criminal legal aid? | New Zealand Ministry of Justice

IMO he wants to represent himself because he likes the fame/publicity/chance to speak about his views