I truly despair that the public debate falls far short of your arguments here.
I fail to see how censorship can do anything but increase divisions.
It is a simple matter to get a VPN and download tor browser and take oneself off to some obscure 8chan echo chamber and talk the sort of poison that lead to the Christchurch massacre.
Surely we can all see that echo chambers (whatever the flavour of echo) are one of the sources of division. We are surely better to hear the speech we find objectionable, to understand it, to quantify it, to know who is saying it then to pretend it doesn't exist and hope that hate will magically dissappear if we don't hear it spoken.
This would be the very thin end of a very large wedge. First case likely to be one of the usual minorities screaming that their feelings have been hurt. Then a pile on by the other usual actors and before you know it, only expressions of opinion approved by the Government will be deemed as safe.
As per your well researched written article, the law could be tidied up but not one inch of further intrusion allowed. The world is a tough place however, we don’t need a self appointed regulator to keep us ‘safe’.
If the supreme art of war is to subdue your enemy without having to fight.
And if all warfare is based on deception and misdirection.
And historically speaking, the largest and most diabolical losses of human life, suffering, genocides, famines and war have come primarily from the ruling class, tyrants and dictators.
One has to be very cautious of the pursuit of short term safety, versus the larger and long term implications.
Because history tends to repeat itself
And what starts with an inch can easily become a mile in this world of shifting goalposts.
Brilliant analysis! I trust you are also submitting feedback to DIA on their proposal? I am quite frankly shocked and disappointed that this is the quality of thinking that has permeated our Ministries. I'd be embarrassed to even release such a document for public consultation if I was in management at DIA.
Thank you for your very kind comments. Yes - I have submitted extensive feedback to the DIA comprising an explanatory documents which provides a context to my answers to their questions. I have also suggested an alternative that would be for more acceptable than their far-reaching and entirely unnecessary proposal.
The thematic commentary will be available in 3 parts (it is quite long) and I shall also publish my answers to the questions and my alternative proposal. I shall start the series next week. I have published quite enough this week.
Thank you for the analysis on the various laws here with publication and broadcasting - it is interesting they are being lumped together which i think is a sign of the times (we have minor publishers) and big publishers such as Radio New Zealand. Listen to Susie Ferguson’s show about ‘ Misinformation’ in NZ.
Podcast 2 was broadcadt this past Saturday which provoked me to publish on LinkedIn. Wonder if publication on that platform by me is inciting unsafe feelings presently?
Thanks for your comments. Susie Ferguson's show on Misinformation is another polemic a la Fire and Fury and Web of Chaos. Ferguson perpetuates the unblanaced approach of those two programmes, uses sources of doubtful authority such as Byron Clark and Kate Hannah and lacks a degree of intellectual rigour that the study requires but has been missing from mainstream commentary.
I note your comment on centralisation - seems to be a "thing" these days.
As to inciting unsafe feelings - subjective to say the least. I think you would be covered by NZBORA s. 14 :-)
I truly despair that the public debate falls far short of your arguments here.
I fail to see how censorship can do anything but increase divisions.
It is a simple matter to get a VPN and download tor browser and take oneself off to some obscure 8chan echo chamber and talk the sort of poison that lead to the Christchurch massacre.
Surely we can all see that echo chambers (whatever the flavour of echo) are one of the sources of division. We are surely better to hear the speech we find objectionable, to understand it, to quantify it, to know who is saying it then to pretend it doesn't exist and hope that hate will magically dissappear if we don't hear it spoken.
Thanks for this excellent analysis.
Thank you for this enlightening essay.
This would be the very thin end of a very large wedge. First case likely to be one of the usual minorities screaming that their feelings have been hurt. Then a pile on by the other usual actors and before you know it, only expressions of opinion approved by the Government will be deemed as safe.
As per your well researched written article, the law could be tidied up but not one inch of further intrusion allowed. The world is a tough place however, we don’t need a self appointed regulator to keep us ‘safe’.
Keep up the good work.
If the supreme art of war is to subdue your enemy without having to fight.
And if all warfare is based on deception and misdirection.
And historically speaking, the largest and most diabolical losses of human life, suffering, genocides, famines and war have come primarily from the ruling class, tyrants and dictators.
One has to be very cautious of the pursuit of short term safety, versus the larger and long term implications.
Because history tends to repeat itself
And what starts with an inch can easily become a mile in this world of shifting goalposts.
Brilliant analysis! I trust you are also submitting feedback to DIA on their proposal? I am quite frankly shocked and disappointed that this is the quality of thinking that has permeated our Ministries. I'd be embarrassed to even release such a document for public consultation if I was in management at DIA.
Malcolm
Thank you for your very kind comments. Yes - I have submitted extensive feedback to the DIA comprising an explanatory documents which provides a context to my answers to their questions. I have also suggested an alternative that would be for more acceptable than their far-reaching and entirely unnecessary proposal.
The thematic commentary will be available in 3 parts (it is quite long) and I shall also publish my answers to the questions and my alternative proposal. I shall start the series next week. I have published quite enough this week.
Thank you for the analysis on the various laws here with publication and broadcasting - it is interesting they are being lumped together which i think is a sign of the times (we have minor publishers) and big publishers such as Radio New Zealand. Listen to Susie Ferguson’s show about ‘ Misinformation’ in NZ.
Podcast 2 was broadcadt this past Saturday which provoked me to publish on LinkedIn. Wonder if publication on that platform by me is inciting unsafe feelings presently?
Sharyn
Thanks for your comments. Susie Ferguson's show on Misinformation is another polemic a la Fire and Fury and Web of Chaos. Ferguson perpetuates the unblanaced approach of those two programmes, uses sources of doubtful authority such as Byron Clark and Kate Hannah and lacks a degree of intellectual rigour that the study requires but has been missing from mainstream commentary.
I note your comment on centralisation - seems to be a "thing" these days.
As to inciting unsafe feelings - subjective to say the least. I think you would be covered by NZBORA s. 14 :-)