undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsint_19h6y ago0 comments

Wait, are you saying that watching the video is considered a crime in and of itself? Not redistribution, and not even mere possession, but just seeing it?

0 comments

PorterDuff6y ago

Evidently you can't even read the manifesto (which involves possession of course. Dunno if you get in trouble for reading it over someone's shoulder).

https://qz.com/1579660/new-zealands-manifesto-ban-explained-...

According to that article, having a copy is worth 10 years in the pokey.

stallmanite6y ago

Well that makes me want to go read the damn thing. Good job NZ. This is why you get left off maps.

Taniwha6y ago

Certainly, like child porn, watching snuff movies was already illegal in NZ before the alt-right terrorist attack, all the NZ censor did was confirm that the snuff movie fell under that category, it was essentially born illegal. No one passed any special new laws to make it so.

It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US

asdf216y ago

>It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US

I don't think that's correct.

There are no federal obscenity laws. The U.S. government does not expressly prohibit obscene conduct. In fact, the U.S. government expressly protects some communications in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

https://legalcareerpath.com/obscenity-law/

Taniwha6y ago

18 USC 71 ... is the federal obscenity law, it's been much patched in and around child porn, but the basic law is still there. Of course there's been a lot of Supreme Court rulings in and around it culminating in the Miller test ... Your 'shooting video' is really a snuff film, probably one of the few genuine ones (along with those made by ISIS, and just as bad) and certainly falls under the Miller test

rgbrenner6y ago

You can't just redefine a murder video as pornographic because you don't like it. You mentioned the miller test, so you already know it requires that it depict "sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law".

Ignoring the state law requirement (which you haven't cited), the video does not depict sexual conduct.. and there's no way you can twist this into being illegal in the US. It's not illegal. Period. ISIS videos aren't illegal either.

You've clearly misunderstood our laws.

1 more reply

asdf216y ago

I mean, /r/watchpeopledie was active for nearly a decade and never had legal issues.. I'm not sure this is enforced in any meaningful way.

1 more reply

hnaccy6y ago

>It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US

I fail to see how a shooting video appeals to the prurient interest in any way.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

PorterDuff6y ago

Evidently you can't even read the manifesto (which involves possession of course. Dunno if you get in trouble for reading it over someone's shoulder).

https://qz.com/1579660/new-zealands-manifesto-ban-explained-...

According to that article, having a copy is worth 10 years in the pokey.

stallmanite6y ago

Well that makes me want to go read the damn thing. Good job NZ. This is why you get left off maps.

Taniwha6y ago

It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US

asdf216y ago

>It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US

I don't think that's correct.

https://legalcareerpath.com/obscenity-law/

Taniwha6y ago

rgbrenner6y ago

You've clearly misunderstood our laws.

1 more reply

asdf216y ago

I mean, /r/watchpeopledie was active for nearly a decade and never had legal issues.. I'm not sure this is enforced in any meaningful way.

1 more reply

hnaccy6y ago

>It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US

I fail to see how a shooting video appeals to the prurient interest in any way.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse