SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
At least 50 people were killed in mass shootings at two mosques in Christchurch earlier this year. (Photo: ABC News/Brendan Esposito)
The Christchurch Terrorist's Manifesto Is a Hideous Document, But Banning Possession of It Is Not the Solution
In the end, I feel more endangered by laws authorizing censorship than by right-wing fanatics
Apr 22, 2019
New Zealand has declared it illegal to possess a copy of the Christchurch terrorist's manifesto.
The manifesto reportedly calls for mass murder. (I've got better things to do than read it. Smells like shit, why taste it?) To make it a crime to call for murder is proper; the only issue is where to draw the line.
However, laws prohibiting the possession of a copy of a publication--no matter which publication--violate basic human rights. In addition, they create an excuse for dangerous massive surveillance, as well as dangerous searches of individuals' libraries. Even if you don't have a copy, you might be investigated based on the suspicion you have one. This offers the state an excuse for a fishing expedition against any chosen target. We must get rid of such laws.
For the long term, I feel more endangered by laws authorizing censorship than by right-wing fanatics. A fanatic with a military-style high-velocity semiautomatic rifle is dangerous. A soldier armed with a military high-velocity automatic rifle is even more dangerous. Likewise cops with large-magazine semiautomatic pistols; you can run away and hide from a fanatical shooter for the necessary period of time, but it is nearly impossible to hide from cops for the rest of your life.
The fanatic is dangerous due to an ideology of hate. The soldier or cop doesn't even need an ideology of hate to endanger people--orders are often sufficient. For where this can lead, consider the Tibetans and Uighurs in China, and everyone else in China for that matter. And the "security" forces sometimes bring an ideology of hate to the job. For recent examples, consider the Rohingya in Burma and the Kurds in Turkey. (Recall that Erdogan launched a military repression campaign against the Kurds so he could play a hate card for the next election.)
Thus, even though we want the state to work to protect us from fanatics, as well as many other jobs (see here), we must never accept that as an excuse to weaken human rights protections that stop the state from using that power to tyrannize us.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Richard Stallman
Dr. Richard Stallman's principal work is the Free Software Movement and the GNU operating system - often erroneously referred to as "Linux". His articles on Common Dreams are his own personal views and do not represent the Free Software Foundation or the GNU Project. In addition to his GNU work, Stallman invented the legal technique of copyleft, which can be summarized as "You may change this and redistribute this, but you may not strip off freedom from it," and wrote (with lawyers) the GNU General Public License, which implements copyleft. This inspired Creative Commons. In 1999, Stallman called for development of a free on-line encyclopedia through inviting the public to contribute articles, an idea which helped inspire Wikipedia.
New Zealand has declared it illegal to possess a copy of the Christchurch terrorist's manifesto.
The manifesto reportedly calls for mass murder. (I've got better things to do than read it. Smells like shit, why taste it?) To make it a crime to call for murder is proper; the only issue is where to draw the line.
However, laws prohibiting the possession of a copy of a publication--no matter which publication--violate basic human rights. In addition, they create an excuse for dangerous massive surveillance, as well as dangerous searches of individuals' libraries. Even if you don't have a copy, you might be investigated based on the suspicion you have one. This offers the state an excuse for a fishing expedition against any chosen target. We must get rid of such laws.
For the long term, I feel more endangered by laws authorizing censorship than by right-wing fanatics. A fanatic with a military-style high-velocity semiautomatic rifle is dangerous. A soldier armed with a military high-velocity automatic rifle is even more dangerous. Likewise cops with large-magazine semiautomatic pistols; you can run away and hide from a fanatical shooter for the necessary period of time, but it is nearly impossible to hide from cops for the rest of your life.
The fanatic is dangerous due to an ideology of hate. The soldier or cop doesn't even need an ideology of hate to endanger people--orders are often sufficient. For where this can lead, consider the Tibetans and Uighurs in China, and everyone else in China for that matter. And the "security" forces sometimes bring an ideology of hate to the job. For recent examples, consider the Rohingya in Burma and the Kurds in Turkey. (Recall that Erdogan launched a military repression campaign against the Kurds so he could play a hate card for the next election.)
Thus, even though we want the state to work to protect us from fanatics, as well as many other jobs (see here), we must never accept that as an excuse to weaken human rights protections that stop the state from using that power to tyrannize us.
Richard Stallman
Dr. Richard Stallman's principal work is the Free Software Movement and the GNU operating system - often erroneously referred to as "Linux". His articles on Common Dreams are his own personal views and do not represent the Free Software Foundation or the GNU Project. In addition to his GNU work, Stallman invented the legal technique of copyleft, which can be summarized as "You may change this and redistribute this, but you may not strip off freedom from it," and wrote (with lawyers) the GNU General Public License, which implements copyleft. This inspired Creative Commons. In 1999, Stallman called for development of a free on-line encyclopedia through inviting the public to contribute articles, an idea which helped inspire Wikipedia.
New Zealand has declared it illegal to possess a copy of the Christchurch terrorist's manifesto.
The manifesto reportedly calls for mass murder. (I've got better things to do than read it. Smells like shit, why taste it?) To make it a crime to call for murder is proper; the only issue is where to draw the line.
However, laws prohibiting the possession of a copy of a publication--no matter which publication--violate basic human rights. In addition, they create an excuse for dangerous massive surveillance, as well as dangerous searches of individuals' libraries. Even if you don't have a copy, you might be investigated based on the suspicion you have one. This offers the state an excuse for a fishing expedition against any chosen target. We must get rid of such laws.
For the long term, I feel more endangered by laws authorizing censorship than by right-wing fanatics. A fanatic with a military-style high-velocity semiautomatic rifle is dangerous. A soldier armed with a military high-velocity automatic rifle is even more dangerous. Likewise cops with large-magazine semiautomatic pistols; you can run away and hide from a fanatical shooter for the necessary period of time, but it is nearly impossible to hide from cops for the rest of your life.
The fanatic is dangerous due to an ideology of hate. The soldier or cop doesn't even need an ideology of hate to endanger people--orders are often sufficient. For where this can lead, consider the Tibetans and Uighurs in China, and everyone else in China for that matter. And the "security" forces sometimes bring an ideology of hate to the job. For recent examples, consider the Rohingya in Burma and the Kurds in Turkey. (Recall that Erdogan launched a military repression campaign against the Kurds so he could play a hate card for the next election.)
Thus, even though we want the state to work to protect us from fanatics, as well as many other jobs (see here), we must never accept that as an excuse to weaken human rights protections that stop the state from using that power to tyrannize us.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.