Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....
That's why the American news has cut way back on giving out info on the mass shooters lately. New Zealand is a much smaller country with a population that is more homogenous than ours, so they are making this shooter anonymity mandatory because that's how the people there want it to be.
It's basically "Don't encourage this violence by giving the killers what they want. If you do, there are penalties."
Yeah, when they found out the guy was a leftist, and not one of their made up Trump "White Nationalists", they dropped the story like a hot potato. NPR has even gone as far as putting out a long list of things their on air personalities can't talk about in regards to this story. Jessie Smollett 2.0 since some Democrat politicians and teevee pundits have already blamed it on Trump.
They don't want anyone to know what this killer was really about. It completely doesn't fit their meme of gun control, mass killers are whitey worked up by Trump, etc.
New Zealand doesn't have a constitutional right to free speech. This is why they are warning everyone there to shut up or risk going to jail and paying a $10,000 fine.
Or what they call "an objectionable publication". Yes, they are actually going to imprison people for spreading public information that they don't want the public to see. Even possessing the video is a crime.
This is where censorship leads if you allow it. In the US, this would be called "common sense speech control".
When it's a massacre like this was, yes, that would be criteria enough in my view. There's no good reason to have something like this out there.
Yeah, there's no room for abuse there at all.
Did you know that NZ ISPs started blocking dissenter, bitchute, 8chan, and other sites that aren't "censorship compliant"? All in an effort to cover up this one video. All this happened under the guise of that very same excuse you just gave us.
I do think parliament represents citizens, yes, at least more so than government does.
Do you think Nancy Pelosi cares whatsoever about the people she "represents"? Do you think Hillary Clinton cares about you at all?
I think politicians see themselves as good people, but they dare not cross their donors or they'll be out of a job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Whatever he intended, he failed. First because left-right arguments have a long tradition, so nothing new, and second because people are feeling sorry for Muslims now and there will be tougher policies against right-wing racism in the future.
He failed before he even started.
He knew his actions were evil, but he believed his evil was small compared to that greater evil being carried-out on a daily-basis.
There is no law that says people of other religions can't immigrate to Western countries.
So, if Christians can move to the US or Europe or NZ, why not Muslims?!
How well would it turn out if I immigrated to Yemen, KSA, Iran, the list goes on?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
