Many people online were calling the video a hoax and he wanted to see for himself. The video is evidence of a crime and is in the public sphere (like it or not) for people to investigate, just like the attacks on Sor any other attack like the truck mowing people down in Nice, France.Īn online investigator/video creator (Max Igan) with experience in the movie industry, has gone through each of the thousands of frames from the shooter's video to analyze the event. The government's view that it is objectionable. There are two ways to consider the viewing of the video. But NZ's new law is extreme (maximum 14 years for sharing a video!) and I doubt whether it was enacted just to "prevent the distribution of objectionable material." This guy doesn't sound like a very nice individual and I don't agree with his views at all. Under New Zealand laws aimed at preventing the distribution of objectionable material, Arps faced up to 14 years imprisonment on each count.
There seems to be wide support for censorship and the punishment of thought crimes. I am talking against the trend here, though. And as they cart you off to prison, people would say "I'm all for free speech, but Strangerland's support of drugs is despicable. You might keep your head down, but thanks to the internet, somebody might find the words you wrote in 2019 supporting marijuana and use them to destroy your life. Say 20 years from now, people agree that drugs are all horribly destructive to society, and that people who promote drugs are despicable. Approved opinions don't need protection, only minority opinions do.
Free speech has no meaning if despicable opinions are not allowed.
In any case, despicable opinions are usually the first to be silenced. That's a convenient aspersion to cast on anyone who supports free speech. While I agree that freedom of speech is extremely important, it's interesting that those with the biggest problem with this, are those who regularly state the most despicable opinions.
0 kommentar(er)
