NZ Chief Censor shows it's not just the 2nd Amendment they hate...

New Zealand doesn't have a Second Amendment,  their Prime Minister recently bragged about how firearm ownership is a privilege over there (a couple days before deeming a whole bunch of guns banned without even bothering to put a bill before parliament)

But they also are  going after free speech.

It's one thing to deny the terrorist bastards the infamy and fame they so desire.  It's another, as NZ has done,  to make it a crime to posses or show people their manifesto. 

And conveniently this particular manifesto is where the monster says he expects and endorses the State to take certain actions.   Actions that the State eagerly and proudly did.

"The Office of Film and Literature classification announced Saturday that the document is objectionable under the law."

Well...  isn't that a handy power for their State to have.

This was said by.....  "New Zealand's Chief Censor David Shanks."  And yes, they do have a Chief Censor. Take in this puff piece on the office from a couple years ago

Keep that in mind,  all the people going "We should be like New Zealand."  They have a Chief Censor,  who will ban documents that are problematic for the goverment.


Of course you'l say "It's on the internet, so it's silly for them to think they can ban it."  Which I say "Welcome to the Party, Pal."

But more importantly... 

Now only is the NZ goverment doing some of the things the terrorist wanted,  but they are literally making it a crime for someone to provide evidence of it.

Just consider the incentives of that.

The Founders could never have imagined....

See....  Normally When someone goes "The Founders Would never have Imagined X when they were drafting the bill of Rights!"

That argument is used to say that gun control is (up to even banning handguns) is a-okay.

And the obvious rejoined is.  Well does this apply to First Amendment?  The Founders couldn't imagine internet and TV and...

Well this letter to the editor the New York Times published decided that was a good argument for speech control.  (One of three that they decided to highlight)

Unmoderated internet echo chambers are a danger that the founding fathers never envisioned when they wrote the First Amendment.
...
Americans love the First Amendment, but as with the Second Amendment, we have to have a conversation. In this digital era, is unrestricted free speech worth the proliferation of hate, and potentially more tragic events like those in New Zealand?

Welp.

And there's the race (or is it?)

So the PM of New Zealand is strutting about with how "they did something" And she's oh so proud to announce that in a week (Take that Australia!) she's made her gun control. And is demanding the proles turn in their guns. So far 37 (which is weak for a neighborhood buyback level)
And all the gun control advocates are cheering. Except... the bans aren't even before parliament yet. And they'll be introduced on in "the first week of April".
So... maybe 20 days. Huh. Though the scary part is that despite there not being a law (yet) the PM is already demanding guns be turned in and rounded up. As someone noted "Gotta keep up appearances against Australia."

Race to "Do SOMEthing!"

Interesting.

Not just the explicit "We must pass X before anyone can debate or question it!" That's expected.

One doesn’t have to be opposed to strict gun control — as I am — to
find this both dangerous and a little creepy. Indeed, I am struggling to
imagine to many other circumstances in which the suggestion would be as
uncritically repeated. Some of the worst legislation in all of history
has been passed in the middle of crises or in the immediate aftermath of
tragedies that engendered extreme emotional responses. Invariably,
“don’t listen to the naysayers” is bad, bad advice. So, too, is “If the
government is swift, it can do exactly what it wants to do.” And as for
“don’t let the dissenters show you they are good people” . . . well,
I’ll let you decide whether you want to live any country that heeds that

counsel.

But for the point of how Philip Alpers appears a lot in these articles.

Go over the gun control articles being pushed and you'll find that particular name cropping up again, and again, and again. Also note the PM of New Zealand has pledged gun control in 10 days. Ten. And by pure coincidence Australia had their giant gun confiscation 12 days after their atrocity. Yes... it is that much of a tit-for-tat.

Using the "Standard Model"

The standard model is after a mass atrocity like NZ is for those who already wanted X to be banned to use the fear, panic, high emotions, and demands of "we must do something" to well... do something.

Both advocates of gun control and advocates of gun rights know this mechanism.

But now we have yet more evidence that these murderous losers are also aware of this dynamic.

That is that their horrific actions are used as justification for trying to change law, to change government policy.

Ponder that, you have losers who, by and large are acting out of a need to validate themselves, to make themselves (in)famous. To have their bile read around the world, to become the most famous person in the world...

And they're realizing they can also change governments.

Don't think this will stay to just weapon policy. As long as these murders advocate for something tangentially related to their horror, and push for something that those in power already wanted but did not have a pretext for...

(There's clamoring for all sorts of free speech restrictions about too)

Well, the urge to do something is strong. 

(And yes... the dynamic of State actors doing X because of the horrific actions of a terrorist.... when the terrorist also had interest in the state doing X....)

To use an example. What if an eco terrorist planted incendiary devices in an oil refinery / storage area / transportation. And caused a massive fire. And wrote a manifesto that said the hope was to cause people to get afraid of the damage petrochemicals do.

And then a Green-friendly government used that attack to... clamp down on petrochemicals.

Note the dynamic at work

Maybe bans on streaming video or social media he NZ government is also looking to do that. And has arrested people for sharing videos.

Yes... .they're calling for real-time monitoring of everyone's activity online with instant ability to silence anyone for any reason...

So wait...   they want a Chinese style control of the net?

And recall... that the killer in NZ thought China was best government.

Giving the terrorist what he wants.

Cracked: The FBI investigating cases where the victim is a bad guy sure is crazy, and super villain-like.

Cracked has an interesting idea on "supervillain actions" in this list article.


Some of this is not bad as a lot of it about China doing China stuff (interestingly not their social credit score system but hey a good example non the less) and Turkey doing Turkey stuff. 
But it's interesting that when talking about bad things the Philippines does.... they go after how their draft is done via lottery.... and you can escape the draft by volunteering for military service.

Huh.... that's not exactly the top list of nutty supervillainous stuff I'd think of when I think Philippines.

In fact that's.... sort of how drafts work.  Maybe a bit more flamboyantly implemented but that's the whole idea of a draft.

Similarly one of the entries is the FBI.  Now when it comes to crazy the FBI has a looooong history of questionable programs.

But... this article decides to go with the FBI having the gall to investigate one questionable group plotting crimes against another, worse group. (That is By Any Means Necessary versus the KKK).

I can't wait for the next article where Cracked decries the FBI  or local cops for wasting resources whenever a mobster or drug dealer is killed in a gangland slaying. Or whenever some other "obvious bad guy" is found robbed or beaten or stabbed or shot.

Because a tacit desire that only "good people" should fall under the protection of the law, won't encourage more vigilantism against groups law enforcement considers "bad" and thus won't  actually investigate. 

(Not to mention said "bad" people will feel, justly, that the Legal System will not care for them and that if they want any form of Justice...  they'll have to get it themselves, and thus more retribution and vengeance on their part)


Hmmm... which reminds me of a book about the mechanisms of inner city violence in the US  In short, a lot of the problems with such murders are increased because municipal authorities don't close murder cases and there's a permeating sense of "well the people being killed aren't real victims, so many of them are gang bangers too".   Sounds familiar no?


PS and sure Cracked hates the KKK now, but I'm sure they're quite happy to have a KKK member's help, on the Supreme Court no less to help save the New Deal.

PSS:  Kind of funny how the people screaming "Trump is eroding norms!" are jumping up and down to trample norms like.... "even bad people get legal representation"  or "even crimes against bad people are still crimes"

When even Cracked makes fun of Teacup weaver.

Sure it's user submitted,  but check out #7.