SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Free speech has potentially been taken down another peg in NZ with a woman arrested for a Facebook post about the Christchurch shootings. The woman has been arrested on suspicion of "inciting racial disharmony" after a message was posted to her Facebook page. She faces a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a NZ$7000 fine and living in a society that condemns free speech. However, given the recent ruling in Australia that 'Muslim' is not a 'race' she may get off given that the law she is accused of breaking is of one who “publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting” to other people . This means that it may very well be legal at this time to insult people of a specific religion.
Decades ago they relied on neighbors to find subversives; now they just check social media.
[Ed.: The above is a paraphrase of the linked-to story, not a direct quote, and with submitter's editorialising left in. -- FP (honouring people's right to free speech ;-) )]
Also covered by the NZ Herald.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Friday March 29 2019, @10:30PM (7 children)
Then again, I just read (the very thin) TFA, and I still don't understand exactly what "offensive" thing was said:
The bolded sections above are the only reference to the "offense." Perhaps I'm a little dense, but I'm still not sure what all the ruckus is about.
TFA is almost as fact-free as TFS. Good show!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by https on Friday March 29 2019, @11:34PM (5 children)
It's almost as if the reporters are hesitant to repeat something that could be found to be criminal hate speech.
I mean, really, do you also expect people charged with CP offenses to have their desktop background reprinted on page five?
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Friday March 29 2019, @11:44PM (2 children)
No. But as someone who lives in a place where just about all speech is protected, it seems strange to me that (especially) news organizations wouldn't provide real details.
A little bit of culture shock, I guess. If/when I visit New Zealand, I guess I'll have to grow an internal editor.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @12:57AM (1 child)
it seems strange to me that (especially) news organizations wouldn't provide real details.
It's best to keep the story vague, so their narrative doesn't fall apart. The case they constructed is more frail than an Indian T-shirt factory.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @08:11AM
Dot or Feather?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by lars on Saturday March 30 2019, @01:47AM (1 child)
One wonders if the court documents will then be redacted. How will you even know if you have crossed the line in what you can say? Scary stuff.
(Score: 2) by https on Saturday March 30 2019, @04:57PM
Courts regularly publish things that are not acceptable elsewhere - it's what they deal in. Consider libel and slander at a minimum. Context matters, so no, one doesn't wonder.
The easist way to know is by listening to themselves. I don't think anyone who's ever said "bomb the boats" has had any doubt about which side of the line in their rear view mirror they are on.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 30 2019, @12:25AM
Well of course the actual post can't be published, it's offensive.
When you live in a country where an offensive facebook post gets you jail, you don't play with fire.
...also you wouldn't want to tempt people to say the post isn't offensive, trust the police.