Brenton Tarrant posts on 8chan, shoots up Mosque killing 49 muslims in New Zealand, livestreams from GoPro

Take away the Guns, Censor the Video, Throw people in Jail for Having the Video, or do it all?

  • Just take the guns, it'll work out fine.

    Votos: 65 5.9%

  • Doesn't matter, it's Trump's Fault.

    Votos: 271 24.4%

  • Just ban the video, it's totally doable.

    Votos: 39 3.5%

  • DO EVERYTHING!

    Votos: 207 18.6%

  • Make Null turn us over, that'll make us safe.

    Votos: 528 47.6%
  • Total de votantes
    1,110
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Destacado
User names must be unique dijo:
Suck it Bogans

Ver archivo adjunto 700092
Presiona para expandir...
I like that and the meme with the hypothetical scenario of Moot getting berated by a shitpost Aussie.

b9a.png
 
The First Amendment applies only to the government
Presiona para expandir...
First Amendment """""""""""""""""""""expert""""""""""""""""""""". Haven't there been multiple supreme court rulings that speech online is protected? There are only a few instances in the US where speech is justifiably limited, and that's places like schools, prisons and the military.

Where's Nick when you need him?
 
cura dijo:
Ver archivo adjunto 700111Ver archivo adjunto 700112

Found these two. No wonder they arrested him that quick (lul was it)
Presiona para expandir...
Lmfao, they didnt even show up to the first mosque for 36 minutes after the first call, they probably took over an hour to find the Subaru with the blown out window.
I think that fuckwit was ballsy as to stay within a 3mile radius of 2 police stations in the center of town and survive that long, NZ police must be cracking down so hard out of pure embarrassment.
 
What they obviously meant is that it only applies to the government censoring or punishing people for speech. You people are retarded.
 
sedoL dijo:
Anyone know anything about the trial? Can't find concrete info except garbage news articles and those don't really give much info about the trial besides that he's going to represent himself.
Presiona para expandir...
All i know is it's not going to be open to the public and that they're charging him with one count of murder this trial just in case he gets off.
He's not getting off.
 
Pickle Dick dijo:
Oh god, as I was copying this article, I managed to catch a bit that widened my eyes:

"The First Amendment applies only to the government..."

That is honestly horrifying
Presiona para expandir...
I think he meant that the First Amendment doesn't stop private companies, ISPs, etc. from censoring you, that it only applies to what the government can interfere with you saying and not internet companies, but the way he worded it makes it sound like he's saying the only speech the constitution protects is that of the government's, which is the exact opposite of the reason the First Amendment and the entire Bill of Rights exists.
 
autism420 dijo:
What they obviously meant is that it only applies to the government censoring or punishing people for speech. You people are exceptional.
Presiona para expandir...
He's literally talking about ISPs blocking whole sites, dumbass, and admits that there are debates over it being constitutional. He is not referring to sites blocking you from their platform.
 
HeyYou dijo:
The last article you linked said that all these things done under Sharia law aren't valid in the eyes of the state and are simply personal decisions, including divorce. The middle article states openly that many other Muslims disagreed with his proposal to introduce Sharia law to parts of the legal system, including those on the council. Australia rejected it on all counts. I think you're overblowing this a bit.
Presiona para expandir...

Perhaps I'm overblowing it. But the data is all there to support his conclusions, it's not like how people thought people protesting the confederate statues and electing Trump meant secretly 49% of Americans are Nazis. There's no data support that conclusion. And yet the media is happy to run with that. The fact that anti-terrorist organizations pretty much ignored the shooter the entire time, means they didn't think it was something worth worrying about either. Brevik was what, 8 years ago? How much manpower and resources are you going to put towards something that happens every 8+ years?
 
HeyItsHarveyMacClout dijo:
I hate everyone who uses this as a smug statement to shut other people down. Yeh. That's completely correct. But we have to believe in and embody the spirit of the first amendment if we want it to have any actual meaning whatsoever. We're seeing this all over the web with sites getting deplatformed, and individuals being silenced. I fucking hate some of these idiots like the Proud Boys and Richard Spencer, but at the end of the day, if they can't have any place to speak, if banks shut them down and won't let them own anything, and anywhere they go bans them from membership, is it any different than if the government imprisoned them at all? A school near where I lived had an unironic nazi on staff. The man would post pro-Hitler memes on his facebook, and he constantly said anti-Semitic things. The school couldn't fire him because it's a state school and they can't fire employees for freedom of speech, but he was repeatedly harassed on and off campus, and the president of the university had multiple protests held against him for not firing the guy. In the end he had to quit and move to the countryside to avoid the harassment. I see that as no different than him being exiled.

I personally believe that the internet needs to be held as a "public square." As in the past no speaker could be banned from speaking there, no large company (In the US), that has an essential monopoly on speech should be allowed to ban a user for simply speaking. I know this sounds like a nightmare to enforce, but with all the different methods these big tech companies have at their disposal, there should be away to filter out the drivel while still allowing it to exist.
Presiona para expandir...
If I own a website and I don’t want your things on it, that’s my freedom that you’re taking away if I’m forced to host your shit.
 
Medicated dijo:
Perhaps I'm overblowing it. But the data is all there to support his conclusions, it's not like how people thought people protesting the confederate statues and electing Trump meant secretly 49% of Americans are Nazis. There's no data support that conclusion. And yet the media is happy to run with that. The fact that anti-terrorist organizations pretty much ignored the shooter the entire time, means they didn't think it was something worth worrying about either. Brevik was what, 8 years ago? How much manpower and resources are you going to put towards something that happens every 8+ years?
Presiona para expandir...
I definitely agree with you that some Muslims are often hypocritical, they want the advantage of first world countries but see no responsibility to put the state over their religion, which is antithetical to every single Western value. You see this even with Muslims in the US, I've seen a particularly lol worthy Muslim claim that it's somehow difficult for Muslims to run for office because they might have to put aside their religious values for secular laws or some shit. I don't think they're infiltrating the government to turn countries towards Sharia law or anything, though, and claims that Muslim communities live under Sharia law are quite overblown. They're not going to get away with murdering someone just because they're in a Muslim neighborhood, it's for minor things like personal disputes.
 
Última edición:
dreamworks face dijo:
Am I reading this correctly? 36 mins to respond to an attack a mile and a half away is ridiculous.
Presiona para expandir...
lmfao, NZ police "maintain" that they were in the scene in 6 minutes after the first call, but that's total horse shit since he was in there for a solid 9 minutes shooting in front of a witness on the street (who possibly called the police as soon as the shooting started) as seen in gif related
700144

Source of the gif is from my arsehole, NZ Police you incompetent drongos
 
Graffiti canvas dijo:
Aussies have always been exceptional about banning shit. Bonus points for calling people doing "Tribal Dancing" Apes though...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5ZF-NVQZ034
Presiona para expandir...
Eh pretty much the whole anglosphere had moments like this in the 50s/60s. One thing I found recently while reading through the history of Metal is that one of the earliest kinda-sorta-maybe proto metal songs was banned from US radio networks because of its violent content
If you listened to the song, you will have discovered that it is infact an instrumental song with no words or lyrics. It was banned both because the name "rumble" was period slang for a fight and because "it was feared that the piece's harsh sound glorified juvenile delinquency"

Basically before the boomers became the prime banners of all they deemed offensive, they were targeted by the progenitoomers who managed to tap into levels of out of touch hysteria and mean minded ignorance that is still a marvel to behold even in these REEEE filled times. Seriously its kinda worrying looking at the shit that was being shrieked in the 50s about "juvenile delinquency" and seeing just how much history has been repeating with moral hysteria campaigns
 
Destacado
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo