Via Zero Hedge
Ardern lashed out at “disinformation” and called for a global coalition to control speech. After nodding toward free speech, she proceeded to lay out a plan for its demise through government regulation:
In our glorious leaders own words
But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms. To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?
This is no longer a hypothetical. The weapons of war have changed, they are upon us and require the same level of action and activity that we put into the weapons of old.
We recognized the threats that the old weapons created. We came together as communities to minimize these threats. We created international rules, norms and expectations. We never saw that as a threat to our individual liberties – rather, it was a preservation of them. The same must apply now as we take on these new challenges.
“After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?””
Back to Tyler Durden
As the great civil libertarian Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
Authoritarian, socialist, ignoramus propagandising. Thank feck there is an election next year.
No Minister 
Whiskey&Pie,
You are being disingenuous. You are allowing you antipathy of the PM to obscure the types of speech that she wants supressed.
The PM has been pretty clear it is about social media disseminating things like the video of the Christchurch massacres, or for that matter, the beheadings of Christians by ISIS. The clue is in the words “take up arms”. Basically terrorism.
Free speech has always had reasonable limits. From what I have seen over the last three years she has been consistent about the types of speech she wants controlled. And it tends to be things around promoting violence.
It seems that the hate speech bill seems to no longer be a priority for the government, though I could be wring about that. It is quite a while since we have heard anything from Andrew Little on that subject.
You would be better to focus on the actions of the corporations controlling the main social media sites that stop things that are quite reasonably within the realms of speech being posted. As you know I don’t have a lot of time for covid deniers, but conversely it does not worry me if they publicise their views on social media. It is not the government that stops that, it is the social media companies.
wayne – the pm has been anything but clear on anything since she made the statement that she would lead – `the most open and transparent government in New Zealand’s history’ – or words to that effect.
At best she has attained opaque on rare occasions and at others she has blatantly lied.
I am 100% with whiskey&pie on this matter – Ardern will do her best to stifle dissenting voices and will do her best to pass legislation to achieve this.
BTW you won’t hear from Andrew Little on this subject – there have been two other Justice Ministers since he held the Justice Portfolio. The hapless Faa’foi and now the energetic Kiri Allen whom I have no doubt will do what Ardern tells her on this matter.
Fair cop about Andrew Little. So far as I am aware the Hate Speech proposals are the only proposals restricting free speech. There are no other legislative proposals that would restrict free speech. I don’t think it helps constructive debate to suggest there are such proposals. If you going to suggest there are such proposals, then you have an obligation to actually set them out. Just saying she wants to stifle dissent is not enough. You have to actually what the proposition is.
Wayne the big problem is who gets to decide which speech is not acceptable.
It’s always the left and assorted elite who get to decide.
It’s disingenuous to say it’s the the social media companies who suppress alternative views. They are only following what the lefties and elite want.
I agree with that. Most younger people I know in media, law and academia have pretty uniform views (diversity, LBGT, Treaty, Climate Change, etc). A lot were through the connections I had in the Law Commission, and they were rather different to National Party researchers. These are the same types who control the social media companies. Very much the modern Wellington establishment.
So they are the ones who set policy in social media companies. You would not be surprised they are way more liberal (modern meaning) than the commenters here.
But I would note they are almost uniformly pro Ukraine. Putin is not really their kind of guy, but Velensky certainly is. Same sort of background.
Wayne
That is why I steer clear of Facebook and Twitter. If I want to talk to my friends I’ll send them an email.
Since when has ‘disinformation’ had anything to do with obvious violent terrorism that you reference? If only our media would grow a spine and ask Ardern for actual examples of the ‘disinformation’, lies, or ‘hate speech’ she wants to legislate against, so we can at least assess the merits of her proposals.
This is the very same PM who when faced with some unfortunate vaccine statistics out of Israel ran and hid in the loo until the offending reporter was “cancelled” for not being “Jessica or Tova”
Wayne. Lets canvas the facts re Ms Ardern.
Brought up Mormon. Repudiated the religion at University and became a committed Socialist. A religiously indoctrinated person converting to Socialism is a very dangerous beast – Stalin came down this path.
Was the President of the International Union of Socialist Youth. Hmmm interesting organisation founded by the Second International way back in the early 1900’s. A organisation with long connections to Communism…. and more so with authoritarian socialist thought
During the COVID pandemic Ms Ardern claimed she was the sole source of fact. Deliberately sidelined the National Party leadership in a time of national crisis unseen outside world war – and more than that used her friends in the media to attack any dissent.
Looking at those 3 things it would appear a prima facie case is made that Jacinda Ardern is very authoritarian, very committed to authoritarian socialism and that all leads very naturally to a need for suppression of free speech.
Ms Ardern is a very dangerous figurehead – presenting a reasonable youngish feminist role model to the low information voting under 55 female demographic but underneath it all a very different beast.
I think the more I see of your defense of Labour and its policies around COVID, Hate speech extra that I can only draw the conclusion that you are at heart a believer in the old Utopian ruling elite, we know best class which commands obedience and dictates all thought
I am not defending the Hate Speech proposals. I think they are an unnecessary restriction on free speech. Speech that advocates violence or racial discrimination is already restricted.
Incidentally, these days International Socialist Youth is simply the international youth arm of western Labour Parties and Social Democrat Parties, such as the current German government, or the recently defeated Swedish government. It is not some sort of communist front. Unless of course you think the NZLP is a communist affiliated front.
The problem is Dr Mapp, who gets to define what misinformation is?
A Godless globalist like Jacinda Ardern?
Or would you like to assign the task to me?
NZLP. Communist at its core?
On balance yes.
Why? The 2014 manifesto stated Labour believed in equality of outcome. Not opportunity but outcome. The very definition of communism… All citizens get the same regardless of effort or skill
Communism/Authoritarian Socialism has evolved Wayne. They now dont need to directly control the means of production instead they seek control of where investment should go via statue and regulation. Then control the cash flows arising from production via opressive tax and redistribution plus onerous workplace agreements.
Old school communism is almost dead and it has been retooled to authoritarian and directive big government.
Its looking you right in the eyes Wayne but you either dont see or think its the right approach…
Haha.
A few months ago on my post about the overturning of Roe v Wade I made a comment that included this quote from Margaret Thatcher, of which I’ll repeat only this key part:
This was the response from Wayne Mapp:
Incredible. Thatcher had plenty to say against communism, especially as it existed in Eastern Europe and the USSR. But that piece of writing wasn’t about that. It was about socialism – in Britain, and how it was aided and abetted for decades by the British Conservative Party.
I see we have our regular commenter here defending the indefensible. Good luck with that, Wayne.
Cognitive dissonance is hard to overcome, as it stands between the mind and the abyss. Many of us have looked into it and made our peace, but there will be those who cling to everything’s OK, everything’s normal. Nothing to see here. Don’t you dare tell me there is something to see here and disturb this carefully constructed veil of reality that I’ve created! Anyway, we can’t really push people into it, as they will get there on their own – one way or the other.
Wayne
Our glorious leader used violence to suppress a peaceful protest against our democratically elected parliament because she and her supporters believed they were disseminating disinformation. Yet similar long occupancy protests elsewhere in the country were left alone or achieved their ends. Please don’t be an apologist for a corrupt regime. I am not being disingenuous at all. Using facts from this year in this country and Arderns own words.
Totally agree with your premise that Ardern wants to suppress free speech. We are seeing it in action right now in New Zealand. On the fringes of what people consider acceptable, so they can turn away and not be upset by those that are impacted, but it is there.
The noose grows tighter around us all. I can see it in my posts of a decade ago where I am internally amazed at the issues I discussed back then, knowing they are far more difficult to talk about now.
Wayne please defend her further quoted comments
“She defended the need for such global censorship on having to combat those who question climate change and the need to stop “hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology.”
“After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?””
Refer 14:25 in the video at the link above. She started referring, reasonably, to live streaming terrorist events then switched to tackling climate change catastrophism by stopping those of us who think it is an overblown socialist doom con from speaking our views.
Fair point about climate change. I wasn’t aware that had got caught up in the “Christchurch Call”.
Yes, I agree that would be a step way vtoo far. Restricting direct advocacy violence and terrorism, yes. Other contentious issues such as climate change, vaccine effectiveness and a thousand and one conspiracy theories, no.
Wayne, she stood in front of the UN global assembly and made those statements a few days ago and you are suggesting absence of public current legislation is evidence there are no proposals. There is VIDEO evidence.
Does He Puapua ring any bells with you? Does the Deputy PM being kept blissfully unaware of the written proposal mean anything to you?
Does Ardern lying about no compulsory vaccine mandates mean anything to you? Does her willingness to suggest there are two classes of citizens, those who submit to her illegal vaccine mandates and those who don’t mean anything to you?
Does the media propaganda fund of $55m mean anything to you?
She learned her trade as a policy flunky in Tony Blairs government at the feet of Peter Mandelson.
What on earth makes you think that she is going to democratically share proposals and stand on a manifesto position of suppression of free speech with a demonstrated history like that?
Bruh, when in a hole stop digging. 😉
Thanks Wayne our comments crossed.
If you think it’s only and solely social media companies trying to restrict free speech, and they’re not in cahoots with governments, then go and research Alex Berenson’s struggle with Twitter and the US Government.
Really, some people need to read beyond the Herald, Stuff or One News.
Yip! Berensen discusses this with Joe Rogan in a recent pod….
They’re all the bloody same; here’s California Governor Gavin Newsom with his “Medical Misinformation Bill”:
Which is the problem with all this “banning disinformation” shite. Who decides what it is and what’s their claim to such expert decision making. In the example above the “contemporary scientific consensus” has moved around a lot in just two years.
Glenn Greenwald, of Snowden NSA leak fame agrees with me.
“This is the face of authoritarianism – even though it looks different than you were taught to expect. And it’s the mindset of tyrants everywhere:
This is someone so inebriated by her sense of righteousness and superiority that she views dissent as an evil too dangerous to allow:”