• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is 9/11 footage acceptable but not other videos of mass murders?

Fledermaus said:
Not in the United States.

New Zealand doesn't have the same rights.
Click to expand...

Right, but would you still agree NZ is undertaking a blatant double standard and applying selective outrage based on (likely) the race of the victims being killed in certain footage, and that they should be condemned for this?

NZ has never had a problem with Internet access in their country being used to show real time murders. They've only taken action against it when it happens to a group they deem more worthy of their intervention. This is a problem, but instead of rightful questioning or condemnation they've been praised by the global media and cultural machine.
 
Crusader13 said:
Right, but would you still agree NZ is undertaking a blatant double standard and applying selective outrage based on (likely) the race of the victims being killed in certain footage, and that they should be condemned for this?

NZ has never had a problem with Internet access in their country being used to show real time murders. They've only taken action against it when it happens to a group they deem more worthy of their intervention. This is a problem, but instead of rightful questioning or condemnation they've been praised by the global media and cultural machine.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for your official censor....

Perhaps the attacks were considered so heinous as to deserve this sort of censorship. Perhaps New Zealand doesn't want to be known for xenophobic mass murderers.

And what "race" were the victims?
 
Crusader13 said:
You're still missing the point. Google and Facebook do not need New Zealand. New Zealand has no global power or even market force to worry megabrands like them.

Google and Facebook removed the footage at their own discretion. It wasn't because of government intervention. It was because they deemed the content dangerous and insensitive and didn't want their platform used for such material. These sentiments were shared by other companies who have a role in controlling global information, mainly Internet service providers and the media who undertook their own methods to ban the content from their platforms. The question remains why these platforms don't have a problem with similar content being shown of other people being killed. It's a double standard.

The NZ government also has no problem with the widespread distribution and broadcast of footage of other attacks. NZ has only taken legal action against people who show footage of Muslims being killed. Footage of 911, the Boston marathon bombings, and other violent attacks have been easily accessible there for decades without government intervention. It's only when it's footage of a special group of victims that they decide to step in and stop people from watching it.
Click to expand...

I believe only Muslims were killed in Christchurch. You evidently have a problem with that.
 
joko104 said:
New Zealand went fascist in gun control laws - so now is acting like fascists act - increasingly controlling everything people may and may not say or do, while hiding any truth they want to hide and telling any lies they want to replace it.
Click to expand...

Crap. It was FACEBOOK who took down the videos. If you want fewer people shot, remove guns. It works. You can call it fascist all day long, but as far as I can recall it was fascists who killed the girl in Charlottesville, and fascists who murdered over six million Jews, and countless others they considered untermenschen.
 
It's New Zealand and their laws are different....aren't they?
No 1st amendment....right?
911 was the US and we have the 1st amendment.

Maybe just maybe that's the difference and as a sovereign country they can decide what they want, just like we can.
 
Last edited:
maybe because 9/11 was done for an agenda of the government...
 
snakestretcher said:
I don't live in New Zealand. So, what are these absent rights you are trying to skirt around? For your information here is New Zealand's Bill of Rights...

Bill of Rights 1688 No 2 (as at 26 March 2015), Imperial Act Contents – New Zealand Legislation
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 - Wikipedia
Anything missing?
Click to expand...

First link.

Freedom of speech
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament:

Hmmmmm

I don't think that means what you think it means.
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
Freedom of speech
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament:

Hmmmmm

I don't think that means what you think it means.
Click to expand...

That was the first bill in 1688. Times have changed. Honestly, do I have to hold your hand to find this stuff which took me all of five seconds?

Human rights in New Zealand - Wikipedia
 
Fledermaus said:
I stand corrected.

Freedom of speech/expression is codified.
Click to expand...

So is hate speech lol. Guess that tells you how free their speech really is.

Just like Australia, NEW Zealand appears to have a version of free speech which isn't free at all. Its basically "you can say whatever you want as long the government approves of it".
 
Fledermaus said:
I can't speak for your official censor....

Perhaps the attacks were considered so heinous as to deserve this sort of censorship. Perhaps New Zealand doesn't want to be known for xenophobic mass murderers.

And what "race" were the victims?
Click to expand...

I believe most of them were black. But more accurately, it was probably the religion of the victims which caused the NZ government to apply selective outrage here.

Either way, it's disgusting to see the global powerhouse media and all platforms involved support this measure without questioning it. It's impossible to deny that this case is getting more sympathy because of its symbolism of white Supremacy. Some papers in Australia and New Zealand even dared to call it the worst terrorist attack on any group in the West. Yes, the same West with countless attacks which exceed Christchurch in every possible measure, including 911 with 3000 dead bodies.
 
Crusader13 said:
I believe most of them were black. But more accurately, it was probably the religion of the victims which caused the NZ government to apply selective outrage here.

Either way, it's disgusting to see the global powerhouse media and all platforms involved support this measure without questioning it. It's impossible to deny that this case is getting more sympathy because of its symbolism of white Supremacy. Some papers in Australia and New Zealand even dared to call it the worst terrorist attack on any group in the West. Yes, the same West with countless attacks which exceed Christchurch in every possible measure, including 911 with 3000 dead bodies.
Click to expand...

One wonders why your knickers are in a knot about this.

And no.

According to what I have seen they are not black. At least by American definitions. Perhaps New Zealand goes by the "one drop" theory or something more than tan equals black concept.

Do you disagree with this being a heinous terrorist attack?
 
Irredentist said:
There are significant differences between the two circumstances. The 9/11 attacks happened in public, in the middle of the largest city in the US. Even if the government wanted to ban all footage of the attack it would be impossible to do so. There are simply too many people with their own videos of it. Christchurch, on the other hand, was a much more localized, small scale affair, comparatively speaking, and not nearly as much footage of it exists. This makes it much easier to suppress, which is likely done both to protect the dignity of the victims and to prevent glorification of the murders.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Crusader13 said:
I've been following the Christchurch shooting case closely and I'm almost appalled at the level of special treatment it seems to be getting. People are being jailed and fined for owning or distributing the video of the massacre. Websites which host it are being heavily targeted by law enforcement agencies, internet service providers, the media, and Google - all playing the part in making sure the video can't be seen by anyone.

Surely everyone can see that there's a massive double-standard here given that there was never any fuss kicked up about footage of the 9/11 attacks taking place. You could make an entire volume of documentaries using all the footage of that much, much, much worse attack. It's commonplace for media or movies to mindlessly show footage of planes hitting the tower or the towers collapsing - the exact moment when thousands of people would've died instantly. No bans, no outrage that YouTube has showed the video hundreds of millions of times, nobody demanding all websites be shut down to prevent similar attacks being motivated or to show respect for the victims. Nothing even close to the level of outrage that has taken place over the Christchurch footage.

One can't help but feel that this case is getting special treatment because of the circumstances - ie, someone from a group the Left despises killing a bunch of people that the Left loves. Surely we should hold the same standard across all attacks then? It's not hard at all to find footage of regular, mostly white people being murdered en masse in attacks yet there is no outrage.
Click to expand...

Who have been jailed for owning the videos?
 
WCH said:
Could be about not giving any notoriety to the perp or the possibility of triggering others.


And yes, given the graphic nature of Hollywood movies, I'd say people do want to see people getting shot, bombed, killed in general.
Click to expand...

Not really. We know movies are fake. When you watch the real thing, you'd know.
 
Crusader13 said:
I believe the government shouldn't pick and choose which violent videos are OK and which ones aren't. This is an institution we are supposed to trust and they are proving that they'll only act on taking down information if it's convenient to their wider cause. It's hard not to be outraged at that given that it's a telltale sign of a corrupted institution.

I don't see how it's any different to WWII Germany where the government probably outlawed videos of Nazis being killed yet decided it was OK to broadcast and watch videos of Jews being killed. It's the same.
Click to expand...

No, it’s not even remotely close, and not just because the technology wasn’t even remotely close to today’s.

But I’m not surprised a “crusader” would whine about not getting to see innocent Muslims get murdered. The crusaders did an awful lot of that after all.
 
Crusader13 said:
I've been following the Christchurch shooting case closely and I'm almost appalled at the level of special treatment it seems to be getting. People are being jailed and fined for owning or distributing the video of the massacre. Websites which host it are being heavily targeted by law enforcement agencies, internet service providers, the media, and Google - all playing the part in making sure the video can't be seen by anyone.

Surely everyone can see that there's a massive double-standard here given that there was never any fuss kicked up about footage of the 9/11 attacks taking place. You could make an entire volume of documentaries using all the footage of that much, much, much worse attack. It's commonplace for media or movies to mindlessly show footage of planes hitting the tower or the towers collapsing - the exact moment when thousands of people would've died instantly. No bans, no outrage that YouTube has showed the video hundreds of millions of times, nobody demanding all websites be shut down to prevent similar attacks being motivated or to show respect for the victims. Nothing even close to the level of outrage that has taken place over the Christchurch footage.

One can't help but feel that this case is getting special treatment because of the circumstances - ie, someone from a group the Left despises killing a bunch of people that the Left loves. Surely we should hold the same standard across all attacks then? It's not hard at all to find footage of regular, mostly white people being murdered en masse in attacks yet there is no outrage.
Click to expand...



This is like when those Muslim extremists were taking heads off Americans that wouldn't be shown on the news. All the people in the news station saw it. But it was determined too cruel for us to see. Mommy doesn't think the little ones to see it. F'm. Who do they think they are? It's one thing to repress free speech. It's an entirely other thing to repress what they know from you seeing. No different then when women and minorities were not allowed education. Not allowed the same information that the white males had access to. But the elite...
 
In general, American media should be far less squeamish about showing the results of something evil.

Is it something you want to see? No.

Will it disturb you? If you have a heart.

Is it bad that you are disturbed by it? No. I think one has a duty to know evil, so that one understands the importance of fighting it. That requires reading some deeply unpleasant things and viewing them as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom