As most Geekzone users are technically sophisticated, and have a better than average understanding of what intelligence gathering and data retention actually means and how far it can go, I am curious to know how they feel about these developments. Is this necessary? Is it desirable? Is it inevitable in the face of determined fanaticism?
At the same time, what limits, if any, should be placed on free speech? I keep seeing commentaries about how this is an essential part of our democracy and the importance of the fourth estate, but then today someone on Sky News pointed out that the French magazine Charlie Hebbo that everyone is now claiming to support, would have been immediately closed down if an attempt to publish it in Australia had been made. I assume the same is true for New Zealand. There is little political satire in this country, especially the kind of biting bad taste satire published in Charlie, and making fun of religion or other sacred cows is apparently also out of bounds. By Continental standards we are bland to the point of terminal boredom and heavy-handed censorship makes sure our precious kiddies are insulted from anything that smacks of sex or controversial ideas, though unrestrained violence seems to be okay.
So where should the limits lie? I believe some things, like racism, should be prohibited by law because it has been shown that they do real damage and can lead to extremes like the Holocaust and ethnic cleansing. I don’t think simple bad taste should be banned, or making fun of political figures, which has a long and noble tradition, at least outside New Zealand, or even poking fun at religion. People, especially in this country, should not be so easily offended, but if they are, they can reply in kind. Write an impassioned letter, or draw a funny cartoon, or organise a demonstration. That is what free speech is supposed to be about.
Trusted
