******Official politics thread ******

[DinoTriz2]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i'm sorry you don't think terrorists should be jailed if they're white

racist

Sharing a video online isn't terrorism.

Sorry, we're not a 3rd world dictatorship.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by DinoTriz2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sharing a video online isn't terrorism.

Sorry, we're not a 3rd world dictatorship.

in new zealand it is

As of Thursday, at least two people had been charged with sharing that video via social media, under a law that forbids dissemination or possession of material depicting extreme violence and terrorism.

[DinoTriz2]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As of Thursday, at least two people had been charged with sharing that video via social media, under a law that forbids dissemination or possession of material depicting extreme violence and terrorism

That means a video depicting terrorism.

That doesn't mean the sharer is a terrorist, you retard.

So do you think someone should be thrown in prison for 15 years for sharing an ISIS video online?

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I enjoyed this myself. I think the take away is the law is only justified if it aligns with an individual’s moral compass (right vs wrong) and values (what’s important).

yep and that makes governance of ideologically heterogenous groups a wee bit challenging ^^ we can't all just abide in only the laws we like if we hope to maintain a functioning society. Of course that doesn't mean some laws shouldn't be questioned or challenged or that we can't all agree on many laws.

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

why is shame?

it's intolerant [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[DinoTriz2]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

yep and that makes governance of ideologically heterogeneous groups a wee bit challenging ^^ we can't all just abide in only the laws we like if we hope to maintain a functioning society. Of course that doesn't mean some laws shouldn't be questioned or challenged or that we can't all agree on many laws.

Exactly.

This is precisely why I get so triggered.

I seem to live among people (Wonkie) who claim they support liberty and human rights, but turn into boot licking authoritarians the moment they can benefit from it.

We need to agree on a baseline of values.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by DinoTriz2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That means a video depicting terrorism.

That doesn't mean the sharer is a terrorist, you retard.

So do you think someone should be thrown in prison for 15 years for sharing an ISIS video online?

I think relevant to this consideration is the question of whether or not the sharing of said material is likely to result in significant harm. it treads the same water as regulating Islam for fostering violence via jihad, sharia and other extremism.

for the record I don't like the idea of regulating speech or expression, but I also don't like the idea of people being moved to violence by destructive actors.

[DinoTriz2]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think relevant to this consideration is the question of whether or not the sharing of said material is likely to result in significant harm. it treads the same water as regulating Islam for fostering violence via jihad, sharia and other extremism.

for the record I don't like the idea of regulating speech or expression.

If someone has clear and serious allegiances to the terrorism in the shared video, then I'm not opposed to surveillance of the individual.

But prison time? 15 years of prison time? And just for sharing the video?

A lot of people are fascinated with death/shock/violent content.

It doesn't mean they support the people in the video.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by DinoTriz2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If someone has clear and serious allegiances to the terrorism in the shared video, then I'm not opposed to surveillance of the individual.

But prison time? 15 years of prison time? And just for sharing the video?

A lot of people are fascinated with death/shock/violent content.

It doesn't mean they support the people in the video.

yeah, i don't think 15 years in prison is appropriate in this situation, because I don't see it remedying anything. I'm not sure what is appropriate either though. this is the problem with laws. once you pass them, you are stuck with them. i think in this particular case, some sort of internet-breathlock intervention would be more in order, but the law on the books is what it is and law enforcement officers are required to enforce it as interpreted by the courts.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by DinoTriz2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If someone has clear and serious allegiances to the terrorism in the shared video, then I'm not opposed to surveillance of the individual.

But prison time? 15 years of prison time? And just for sharing the video?

A lot of people are fascinated with death/shock/violent content.

It doesn't mean they support the people in the video.

can u relax he's gonna get like 2 years or less, 14 is just the max sentence for that charge

[DinoTriz2]

Canadian Court Judge declared a man guilty of "family violence" because he called his 14 year old daughter by female pronouns.