world

Man who shared NZ mosque shooting video gets 21 months in prison

43 Comments
By NICK PERRY

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


43 Comments
Login to comment

Sounds as if they wanted to make an example out of someone.

A tough decision for the judge it must have been.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

Crap like this has to stop. People can make the claim all they want about "freedom" of speech, but broadcasting murder, in my opinion, is not a freedom of speech issue,

Just because people "can" do it, does not mean they "should", nor should they have the right either, as, again in my opinion, the victims here were NOT public figures and had a right to privacy as well.

7 ( +16 / -9 )

I think it's not enough, given the man's views on Muslims. Should have been about 5 years. At least it's a start.

-10 ( +6 / -16 )

Well done NZ. Contrary to the headline, this man did not merely share the video.

I'd like every society in the world to make examples of people who want to make memes out of hate crime footage.

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Under New Zealand laws aimed at preventing the distribution of objectionable material, Arps faced up to 14 years imprisonment on each count.

This is troubling. Who decides what "objectionable material" is, and where do the New Zealand activsts set the limit? Cricitism of globalist policy is objectionable?

6 ( +17 / -11 )

Why on earth is it taking until next May for the accused murderer's trial to start??

1 ( +4 / -3 )

His sentence should have been longer. Sharing the video and commenting about it being awesome is a hate crime, hence his penalty.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

Perhaps he'd really like to emulate his idol Rudolf Hess, and spend the rest of his life in jail.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

While I find what he did repugnant, I'm not sure if it should be illegal and if so, perhaps a fine alone would suffice. This setting aside the fact that he sounds like a real piece of filth.

Ultimately, it reminds me of snuff films. For those who think it's fine, I wonder how they'd feel if it were their loved ones being massacred on camera, to be seen online for perpetuity. What is possibly gained by that. What if the recent incident in Kawasaki or Sandy Hook were on video--who in their right mind could possibly want to watch such a thing?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

@Yubaru

Crap like this has to stop. People can make the claim all they want about "freedom" of speech, but broadcasting murder, in my opinion, is not a freedom of speech issue,

The man’s use of the word “awesome” whether to describe the murderer or the carnage tells a lot about him and it’s not good.

Are there any circumstances in which you would allow broadcasting or posting of similar content perhaps with the passage of enough time?

Would you object to the broadcast of archival film from WW2 depicting the Holocaust?

The big difference between the airing of the NZ event and the Holocaust (or similar less temporally remote events) is the former’s immediacy. For me, that factor along with a proven intent to provoke similar outrages are the only factors which justify punishing the man.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Don't think distribution alone is what sent him to jail tbh. Imo what he did was some sort of 'incitement to ethnic or racial hatred' which is a crime in quite a few countries (not nz apparently). Pretty sure kiwi judges took that into account when sentencing Arps though.

Not only did he distribute the vid but he also 'endorsed' acts of hate against a group of ppl (in this case Muslims). Bit like ppl who post/openly support IS beheadings online. Can't do that folks.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Australian Brenton Tarrant, 28, last week pleaded not guilty to 51 counts of murder, 40 counts of attempted murder and one count of terrorism in the mosque shooting case. His trial has been scheduled for next May.

like i said before this is not going anywhere they will keep delaying it more and more then said he have some mental issues then release him, or send him to prison for few years then release him this is how it is for long long time and it will never change

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I fear he may now be a martyr to the freaks.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

WilliBToday 12:51 pm JST

Under New Zealand laws aimed at preventing the distribution of objectionable material, Arps faced up to 14 years imprisonment on each count.

This is troubling. Who decides what "objectionable material" is, and where do the New Zealand activsts set the limit? Cricitism of globalist policy is objectionable?

Spot on - who makes the decision of what objectionable material is???

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Spot on - who makes the decision of what objectionable material is???

Ultimately the jury.

In case you were under any doubt, this material in this case was objectionable.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I feel like this also shows the metamorphosis of facebook, which should be a benign way to keep in touch and meet new people, into a vector and platform to carry hate and filth.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Very troubling decision with regards to freedoms. Objectionable , foul, and disgusting speech is what needs protecting the most. I am fearful when government seeks to regulate the words we use or the media we use to broadcast them. Nothing good can come from it.

My opinion, a crime needs a specific victim or a demonstrable harm. I can't see a victim here. Groups cannot be victims any more than they can have rights or responsibilities. A demonstrable harm doesn't mean simple hurt feelings either.

As for a guy like this, he can be punished in the court of public opinion. He can be shamed and vilified, lose social status, and be a pariah for all I care. But when government gets into the business of deciding what is and isn't acceptable speech, we all lose.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

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.

It's pretty clear where their motivations lie, and it's not in preserving free speech because of the freedom. They just want to continue being able to spout their bile.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

While freedom of expression is a legal right in New Zealand, the parameters are more restrictive than the First Amendment guarantees in the United States. New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairs includes a chief censor, an official who has the authority to determine what material is forbidden.

This is from a NYT article

>

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Stranger, you are absolutelly right. Their motivations are less than pure. But so what? I don't want the government deciding who gets to speak based on what the government decides are acceptable or unacceptable motivations.

Besides, it's easy to defend the speech of people you agree with. Defending it for people you find reprehensible is much more difficult. Yet also much more important.

The solution is to drown their bile in truth. Let them ferment in the dark and they will be a bigger problem in the future.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

What Strangerland said just now.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

"Broadcasting murder is not a freedom of speech"

Yes agreed this point: @Yubaru

Crap like this has to stop. People can make the claim all they want about "freedom" of speech, but broadcasting murder, in my opinion, is not a freedom of speech issue,

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Stranger, you are absolutelly right. Their motivations are less than pure. But so what?

Well, it means they are pathetic useless wastes of skin and oxygen of course.

Besides, it's easy to defend the speech of people you agree with. Defending it for people you find reprehensible is much more difficult. Yet also much more important.

Oh, I already defended it. That doesn't mean I'm not going to call out these sick, patethetic humans for being worthless human beings they are.

We need freedom of speech. We don't need them.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Ah but Stranger, people have been CONVICTED of encouraging suicide. Better be careful there.....

Yes they are pathetic and all that, but that isn't a problem for the government to solve. And freedom of speech by definition includes "them".

Realization: If you don't want to watch a broadcast of murder, then don't. That's YOUR freedom.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Freedom of speech means defending the right to say what one finds objectionable (incitement to violence excepted), not the right to create a totalitarian discourse in the guise of a happy-clappy safe space.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Jailing him just gives him the airtime and publicity he so craves.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Strangerland:

We need freedom of speech.

Exactly. And that includes freedom of speech that you dislike. Other it is not. Which is something that our self-appointed arbiters of free speech do not seem to understand.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Ah but Stranger, people have been CONVICTED of encouraging suicide. Better be careful there.....

And suddenly you’re warning people to watch their speech. Hmm...

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Exactly. And that includes freedom of speech that you dislike. Other it is not. Which is something that our self-appointed arbiters of free speech do not seem to understand.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to point out how pathetic the individuals who abuse that freedom are.

Seriously the stuff stuck to my shoe after waking through the park has more value to humanity than these pathetic wastes of skin.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Strangerland: "It's pretty clear where their motivations lie, and it's not in preserving free speech because of the freedom. They just want to continue being able to spout their bile."

Actually, what's not clear is whether you support the man being jailed or you support him putting up the video.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Here's my vote. I accept this as a valid judicial act (it was not unreasonably computed given the lay of the statutory law). However, I find a law mandating up to 14 years imprisonment for something as mundane and vague as "objectionable material" to be rather reprehensible. If you need scalars, please note that even the Russians, who are not known to be greatly respectful for human rights, is only 2-5 years for Article 282.

The fact of life is that every time you draw a little box justifying a restriction of freedom of speech, you are making it easy to justify the next box. Personally my line for these boxes are in the range of "Commands or equivalent in a public space that are likely to cause a response with substantial consequences." (the good old "Fire" standard) and leakage of genuine national secrets with serious and concrete detrimental consequences.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Under New Zealand laws aimed at preventing the distribution of objectionable material, Arps faced up to 14 years imprisonment on each count.

This guy doesn't sound like a very nice individual and I don't agree with his views at all. 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."

There are two ways to consider the viewing of the video.

The government's view that it is objectionable.

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 Sept 11, 2001 or any other attack like the truck mowing people down in Nice, France.

An 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. Many people online were calling the video a hoax and he wanted to see for himself. He concluded that not only did the shooter commit his crime at the first mosque as reported but that he had help, or handlers as he says. In other words the official lone gunman story is nonsense, along with talk online that the video is CG. After watching his videos it's pretty hard to debunk.

On a similar note, people might remember it being reported in the news that there was another gunman at a second mosque, Linwood, but that seems to have gone down the memory hole and the public is now presented with the lone gunman scenario.

So was the new law enacted soon after the event to 'prevent objectionable material being distributed'? Or was this legislation hurriedly introduced to prevent the public from watching material which would embarrass the government? As usual it always comes down to ... Who benefits?

bitchute.com - TheCrowhouse channel (videos Mar 23 ~ Apr 5). There is no objectionable content, just commentary and still shots.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

My opinion, a crime needs a specific victim or a demonstrable harm. I can't see a victim here. 

I think there are potential victims if the intent was to incite or encourage others to carry out similar acts. Most countries have laws against distributing child pornography. You could argue there is no victim from the distribution process, but if it incites people to sexual acts against children or to produce further child pornography, are such laws not sensible? So if jailing this guy dissuades others from similar incitement, is that not good?

But I agree that it's a difficult area. Someone else might distribute the same material with the intent of simply showing how horrific the crime was. We have many examples of that in the media from wartime atrocities. Or an Islamic extremist might show the footage to others to encourage hatred of non-islamic cultures.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Good points, Attila

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yubaru

"Crap like this has to stop. People can make the claim all they want about "freedom" of speech, but broadcasting murder, in my opinion, is not a freedom of speech issue"

First off, I hate using JT's comment section. One of the worst designs out there.

Second, I remember a certain day in September of 2001 when the TV stations in my country, USA, played video footage, over and over again for days on end, of THOUSANDS of people getting murdered. No one back then made any attempt to silence those who choose to watch or distribute what happened that day. It's unbelievable how authoritarian NZ has become.

While I find this man's views to be disgusting, there is NO crime here.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

WilliB, yes, its a dangerous and slippery slope. NZ is looking disturbingly draconian over this issue.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I suppose if you are classifying the shooter as a terrorist, then there would be a direct connection with sharing the video. But I don't recall ever reading about people being arrested and sentenced to time in prison for sharing ISIS videos.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

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.

That's a convenient aspersion to cast on anyone who supports free speech. In any case, despicable opinions are usually the first to be silenced. Free speech has no meaning if despicable opinions are not allowed. Approved opinions don't need protection, only minority opinions do.

Things change. Say 20 years from now, people agree that drugs are all horribly destructive to society, and that people who promote drugs are 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. 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. Think of all the dead children."

I am talking against the trend here, though. There seems to be wide support for censorship and the punishment of thought crimes. 35 years late, but here we are.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Let me get this straight. The man didn't harm anyone physically, but gets sentenced to 14 yrs?

Something smells terrible in NZ.

If he had been a reporter for 20 yrs first, would there be any charges? What about a journalism student?

What if he was Muslim and trying to get police to respond?

Slope is pretty slippery from here.

I didn't look at the video. Don't plan too, but it happened. It is news. Hiding it is like denying the holocaust.

Did anyone else snap a photo and post it? Did they get charged under the same crime?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Just because people "can" do it, does not mean they "should",

Just because people "shouldn't" do something, does not mean it "should" be a crime.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

theFu; He got 21 months but the maximum is 14 yrs.

I wrote above that someone's careful analysis of the video clearly shows the govt is lying. I think that's the reason they've made it illegal to download (10 yrs) and share (14 yrs). The 'objectionable material' pretext is most likely there to justify the banning of the video IMO. If enough people were aware that the gunman did not act alone it would cause huge problems and possibly bring down the NZ govt since it shows it was a coordinated attack. Sounds like a conspiracy theory but that's what Igan's frame by frame analysis shows.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Thanks weedkila for pointing out where I was way-way-way wrong. Missed the article title. Ooops. If you use a VPN or TOR, you can get the full video, if that is something you want.

Is objectionable material defined clearly or are citizens supposed to just know what it means? https://www.dia.govt.nz/Censorship-Objectionable-and-Restricted-Material seems to define it. Looks like any TV/Movie that is rated PG-13 would easily qualify under "objectionable material" definition.

I especially like this clause:

degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person

I feel demeaned by this NZ law.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Your either for free speech or against free speech. I watched the video. I did not think it was awesome. By the logic the nz courts the video of the JFK assassination should be banned. If someone said that video was awesome should they be jailed? Free speech is not sometimes yes but sometimes no.

I guess American ideas are not for everyone.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites