I agree with Trump and Dutton. Not with Canadian (or any other) crypto-fascists. I am more than happy to draw the line.

elpenguino:

 

You describe Manning as 'he', but Manning describes herself as 'she'. Does that mean you are un-supportive of her gender reassignment?

 

I've used he and she, depending on the period of time I was referring to. 

MikeAqua:

 

Manning could enjoy un-fettered freedom of speech via video-call into any meeting or public event in NZ.

 

People may remember that Julien Assange once did so for an internet-mana party rally. 

 

Looks like Manning video called a gathering in Sydney.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/106767388/Chelsea-Manning-appears-at-Sydney-Opera-House-via-video

Immigration denied, freedom of speech utilised.

Which just goes to demonstrate that there was no point whatsoever in banning her. It was just a cheap political shot by a thoroughly discredited government agency. I am glad we are more grown-up about such things.

Rikkitic:

 

Which just goes to demonstrate that there was no point whatsoever in banning her. It was just a cheap political shot by a thoroughly discredited government agency. I am glad we are more grown-up about such things.

 

Personally I think this demonstrates quite nicely that  freedom of speech within a country is not dependent on approval to enter it.  In today's world location is almost irrelevant to communication.  People do surgery remotely ...

Weather Manning not being approved to enter Australia was 'pointless' depends on what the rationale was.  If it was to prevent her speaking, then yes it was pointless - but surely the powers that be would know that in advance?  If it was to keep her out of the country - worked.  If it was a nod to Uncle Sam - worked.

I'm not uncomfortable with NZ's decision.  Manning is a criminal, oath-breaker and traitor, but probably not capable of causing further harm.

MikeAqua:

 

I'm not uncomfortable with NZ's decision.  Manning is a criminal, oath-breaker and traitor, but probably not capable of causing further harm.

 

 

 

While all those things are on the face of it true, the larger and more important point of the issue is that her actions were done for a GREATER good.

I am morally and ethically allowed to punch you in the head if it stops you beating your wife.

Do you accept this idea?

And how about some of the criminal acts she exposed, that would have remained buried forever without her? There are different ways of defining treason. Those who oppose her keep rabbiting on about her dastardly actions, never a word about the innocent civilians mown down by American hot-shots who joked about it as they slaughtered parents and children. Maybe Manning shouldn't have done what she did. Neither should those she exposed. I see her acts as very much the lesser of evils. It has never been proven that anyone died as a result of what she did. There is no question whatsoever that the ones she exposed were responsible for many illegal killings. There seems to be something of a double standard here.

elpenguino:

 

MikeAqua:

 

I'm not uncomfortable with NZ's decision.  Manning is a criminal, oath-breaker and traitor, but probably not capable of causing further harm.

 

 

 

 

While all those things are on the face of it true, the larger and more important point of the issue is that her actions were done for a GREATER good.

 

I am morally and ethically allowed to punch you in the head if it stops you beating your wife.

 

Do you accept this idea?

 

I believe you would be charged with common assault in the example provided. If your punch had broken his jaw for example you'd also be charged with one of the nastier crimes ("... and causing injury").

The police might argue you used a unnecessary level of violence to stop the attack on MikeAqua's wife, suggesting a grappling attack would have easily sufficed and that you escalated the level of violence.

My views are that you cannot censor free speech. This latest one is a classic example. Who decides who we censor? Might be an ultra left wing liberal, might be a ultra right wing conservative, might be someone in power with a bias. That other couple was decided here to ban them, this one, its ok. Picking and choosing, it may as well be an autocrat deciding based on his/her bias

elpenguino:

 

MikeAqua:

 

I'm not uncomfortable with NZ's decision.  Manning is a criminal, oath-breaker and traitor, but probably not capable of causing further harm.

 

 

While all those things are on the face of it true, the larger and more important point of the issue is that her actions were done for a GREATER good.

 

I am morally and ethically allowed to punch you in the head if it stops you beating your wife.

 

Do you accept this idea?

 

There is specific defence at law for preventing assault.  Are there analogous defences for oath-breaking, treason etc based on the greater good ? 

Also, what greater good?  OK, a whole lot of info has been leaked - but what has changed in a way that can be attributed to the leak? Arguably - no good at all was achieved by Manning and we are back to treason and oath-breaking. 

It's very subjective and it's very easy for someone to argue they thought they were acting for the greater good - those people who vandalised the Waihopai radio domes being a classic example.

BTW - I don't have a wife and have never raised my hand to a woman in my entire life - not even in self defence.  It's unclear to me why you needed to use such a personalised example.

tdgeek:

 

My views are that you cannot censor free speech.

 

No-one tried to censor Manning in relation to visiting to Australia or NZ.  The only contention was around entry to the country, based on criminal record.  Any reasonably informed person would realise that she could still video-call in, so denying entry would be futile as an act of censorship

If you are referring to confidentiality of information - then I think censorship can be reasonable.  I routinely sign NDAs in relation to govt's or other companies' information.  If I break those agreements I can be sued, fired and ruined financially and professionally.  So I get to learn about some cool stuff while being paid to do so, but that means I can't talk about it.

MikeAqua:

 

tdgeek:

 

My views are that you cannot censor free speech.

 

 

No-one tried to censor Manning in relation to visiting to Australia or NZ.  The only contention was around entry to the country, based on criminal record.  Any reasonably informed person would realise that she could still video-call in, so denying entry would be futile as an act of censorship

 

If you are referring to confidentiality of information - then I think censorship can be reasonable.  I routinely sign NDAs in relation to govt's or other companies' information.  If I break those agreements I can be sued, fired and ruined financially and professionally.  So I get to learn about some cool stuff while being paid to do so, but that means I can't talk about it.

 

That's right, but denying entry or some here who wanted to deny entry is censorship, even though video is a workaround. I don't think NDA's apply, the topic is based around the public arena, who can and who can't talk.  

tdgeek:

 

My views are that you cannot censor free speech. This latest one is a classic example. Who decides who we censor? Might be an ultra left wing liberal, might be a ultra right wing conservative, might be someone in power with a bias. That other couple was decided here to ban them, this one, its ok. Picking and choosing, it may as well be an autocrat deciding based on his/her bias

 

This is a fake argument. It is the same one used by alt-righters to drive a wedge so they can spew their poison. You don’t have to have a legal matter of principle that applies the same from one extreme to the other. You don’t need to allow a mob on your street screaming zieg heil to know you don’t want them preaching in your local schools. Some things should be banned. Not because some official or self-appointed censor says so, but because they offend the common sense and decency of the majority of the people.

Rikkitic:

 

tdgeek:

 

My views are that you cannot censor free speech. This latest one is a classic example. Who decides who we censor? Might be an ultra left wing liberal, might be a ultra right wing conservative, might be someone in power with a bias. That other couple was decided here to ban them, this one, its ok. Picking and choosing, it may as well be an autocrat deciding based on his/her bias

 

 

This is a fake argument. It is the same one used by alt-righters to drive a wedge so they can spew their poison. You don’t have to have a legal matter of principle that applies the same from one extreme to the other. You don’t need to allow a mob on your street screaming zieg heil to know you don’t want them preaching in your local schools. Some things should be banned. Not because some official or self-appointed censor says so, but because they offend the common sense and decency of the majority of the people.

 

 

 

Its not a fake argument. You may decide what is right and wrong, doesn't mean it's correct. Some may feel its not wrong, or a little bit wrong or REALLY wrong, so who is correct? alt-right is a view as is alt-left. Whats a majority? 51%.  Most elected Governments are voted in with a majority which is often near 51%. Thats only a technical majority.  My point is we have free speech or we pick and choose when we have free speech, which is a pretend, convenient, but false free speech.

Don't learn anything from history. Enjoy your freedom in Gilead. Let me know how your free speech is going after the fascist takeover.