The Law Man who shared Christchurch shooting video on Facebook sentenced to 21 months in jail

Should sharing graphic content online be worth a prison sentence?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 16 100.0%

  • Total voters
    16

Engimal v3

Premium Gold
Sep 21, 2017
2,591
4,921
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The shooting itself has been covered extensively on these forums, but I'm interested to gauge what everyone thinks of Phillip Arps, who shared a recording of the livestream online, being sentenced to 21 months jail.

From the ABC:
A New Zealand man has been sentenced to 21 months in prison for sharing a video of the Christchurch massacre.

Philip Arps pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing the video, which was livestreamed on Facebook by a gunman who killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques in March.
Arps had argued he had a right to distribute the video under the banner of freedom to pursue his political beliefs.

His defence lawyer Anselm Williams told the judge Arps should not be sent to prison.

"It's my submission that this court needs to be very careful to sentence Mr Arps based on what it is that he has actually done, and what he accepts he has done, not on the basis of the views that he holds," Mr Williams said.

After the hearing, Mr Williams said Arps had filed an appeal against his sentence with New Zealand's High Court, but declined to comment further.
Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-18/new-zealand-man-who-shared-christchurch-massacre-video-jailed/11221444

From what I understand, the guy shared it for all the wrong reasons. But if we remove the context, should sharing a video of a horrific incident be worthy of almost 2 years of jail? I remember as a young teenager, me and one of my best mates would share pretty graphic LiveLeak videos with each other, for shock value. In the mid to late 2000s, shock sites (such as Rotten.com) were wildly popular. I don't think it's a behaviour I'd engage in now as an adult, but it is interesting to think that people are now being jailed for doing similar things.

Does this punishment fit the crime?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bigjobss

Club Legend
Apr 7, 2017
1,851
2,007
AFL Club
Essendon
Where do you draw the line. You can jump on Youtube and legally view some pretty disturbing footage of concentration camps that could be argued might be used to incite modern day Nazism, but because its "historical" it is OK?
That psychos footage exists and it is part of history now and forever because it is on the internet and pandoras box is well and truly open. Locking people up is absolutely pointless apart from instilling fear into slaves.
 

FireKraquora

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 5, 2011
6,481
10,060
AFL Club
Collingwood
Sometimes I try to stick to principles and ideology, other times I just engage common sense and think "f*** that guy".
 

RupieDupie

Guru
Jun 30, 2017
4,228
3,442
AFL Club
GWS
Where do you draw the line. You can jump on Youtube and legally view some pretty disturbing footage of concentration camps that could be argued might be used to incite modern day Nazism, but because its "historical" it is OK?
That psychos footage exists and it is part of history now and forever because it is on the internet and pandoras box is well and truly open. Locking people up is absolutely pointless apart from instilling fear into slaves.
If you have the stomach for it, check out what you can watch for free on Fox News (when the other guyses do it). The reason this incident is being censored is it is not in the public's interest to see what results from people being deliberately engineered and radicalised... Our Government would only prefer news that they want us to hear to reach us, evidenced by them sicking their LNP AFP onto News services and departments who 1) revealed that Mr Potatohead was receiving bribes for political favours 2) revealed potential war crimes 3) revealed that boats are still coming to Australia, and 4) revealed increased power for ASD domestic spying.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
41,979
68,660
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Hope some of the prisoners bounce him off some walls. That said he'll probably end up in protection with grasses, nonces and bent coppers.
 

Present Not Past

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
6,518
4,393
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
I'm happy for this guy to go to prision for his particular offence under the New Zealand "legislation aimed at preventing the distribution of objectionable material", where he faced "14 years imprisonment".
On the whole though I am uneasy about legislation like this.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Engimal v3

Premium Gold
Sep 21, 2017
2,591
4,921
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Hope some of the prisoners bounce him off some walls. That said he'll probably end up in protection with grasses, nonces and bent coppers.
I understand where you're coming from, as this guy appears to be a piece of s**t. But it's concerning to me that there's content on Facebook.com that, if you share it, you can go to jail for quite a while. We're not even talking about LiveLeak here. I'm sure that, out of the millions of people that shared the video, many were doing so out of public interest. Are they likely to be prosecuted? I hope not.
 

Present Not Past

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
6,518
4,393
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
I understand where you're coming from, as this guy appears to be a piece of ****. But it's concerning to me that there's content on Facebook.com that, if you share it, you can go to jail for quite a while. We're not even talking about LiveLeak here. I'm sure that, out of the millions of people that shared the video, many were doing so out of public interest. Are they likely to be prosecuted? I hope not.
Also, what are the guidelines during a trial as to what is deemed to be objectionable? Does anyone know if this was determined during this trial?
 

RupieDupie

Guru
Jun 30, 2017
4,228
3,442
AFL Club
GWS
Also, what are the guidelines during a trial as to what is deemed to be objectionable? Does anyone know if this was determined during this trial?
I'm not sure about NZ, but we have seen what the LNP's AFP consider to be in the Public Interest when it comes to mainstream media reporting on corrupt, misleading, and foul behaviour by The Liberal National Party. I wonder when this becomes objectionable material?


Here's from the NZ law (bolded for what follows rather than in this particular incident)
"In deciding whether a publication is objectionable, or should instead be given an unrestricted or restricted classification, consideration is given to the extent, degree and manner in which the publication describes, depicts, or deals with:

acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm or acts of significant cruelty
sexual violence or sexual coercion, or violence or coercion in association with sexual conduct
sexual or physical conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature
sexual conduct with or by children, or young persons, or both
physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain
exploits the nudity of children, young persons, or both
degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person
promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism
represents that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993."


Given this, and extrapolating to Australia, imagine re-tweeting what Mr Potatohead gets up to in a regular day at work. The sick asshole wouldn't even let a two year old child locked up in one of his concentration camps have a birthday cake

"Alison Battison, the lawyer representing Isabella, said that “the UN calls out the Australian government for detaining children despite the government classifying some of these children as ‘guests'”.

“The UN Working Group opines that the Australian government in detaining children have breached their human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR. These are foundation documents which Australia was involved in drafting following the horrors of World War II. It is embarrassing and deeply concerning to now be in breach.”"
 

Engimal v3

Premium Gold
Sep 21, 2017
2,591
4,921
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Here's from the NZ law (bolded for what follows rather than in this particular incident)
"In deciding whether a publication is objectionable, or should instead be given an unrestricted or restricted classification, consideration is given to the extent, degree and manner in which the publication describes, depicts, or deals with:

acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm or acts of significant cruelty
sexual violence or sexual coercion, or violence or coercion in association with sexual conduct
sexual or physical conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature
sexual conduct with or by children, or young persons, or both
physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain
exploits the nudity of children, young persons, or both
degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person
promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism
represents that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993."
"degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person"

I hope the NZ legal system never gets a hold of my BigFooty posting history!
 

Groin guru

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 21, 2017
8,258
25,422
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
It's a tough one. If he's genuinely an a-hole and he was sharing it to people that aren't in his inner circle - innocent people that would be deeply traumatised by it then I think there should be some sort of punishment.

I've seen some sick one's on 4chan of people turning it into a game trailer like doom. Just click off and a gentle reminder that there are some sick people out there.

As mentioned above - where do you draw the line? This seems like one of those situations where they do something...gauge the blow back from the public and then move in from there. Wouldn't surprise me if all platforms like 4chan, infowars, liveleak etc. were banned in Australia and if you got caught using a VPN you could face a fine or a short term sentence depending on what site you're on. All under the guise of 'stopping radicalisation or the creation of white supremacist's' :drunk:
 

Jobe Watson

Brownlow Medalist
Jun 12, 2009
13,841
17,646
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
He's a genuine racist, so it's hard to feel too bad for him. But it sets a dangerous precedent. I've seen some gross s**t in my Facebook feed. Usually it's friends tagging other friends in posts that contain obscene material in an effort to trigger them. Does that count as sharing? It's scary to think that doing that could result in your life being ruined.

As far as Australia is concerned, it's probably time to remind everyone that Telstra continue to restrict access to 4chan - a website that operates legally and doesn't violate any of our laws - because the NZ government asked them to. An internet service provider banning its paying customers from accessing a website that they have a right to view. Was supposed to be a temporary ban btw.
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
17,870
33,130
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
I really don't see how this law can be justified in a western, modern country. It's the modern internet equivalent to blasphemy laws in a middle-ages theocracy.

If someone is sharing videos like that because they are a racist piece of s**t and the government "absolutely must" punish them for it, then surely the laws around racial discrimination are the place to turn to.
 

kickazz

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
7,584
9,571
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I really don't see how this law can be justified in a western, modern country. It's the modern internet equivalent to blasphemy laws in a middle-ages theocracy.

If someone is sharing videos like that because they are a racist piece of **** and the government "absolutely must" punish them for it, then surely the laws around racial discrimination are the place to turn to.
Totally agree with you in theory.

Thing is, I've always seen the way the media lionises serial killers and terrorists and the like, and thought that to be a big part of the problem. (Kudos for some of them and their recent focus on victim's and their stories)

This just takes it all to another level though. Add his back story and I'm glad for the punishment, but do understand I'm not really studying the person from the crime properly here.

It's not in the public interest. I would hate to think of a family member who got brutally murdered that it would become entertainment for some bored nobodies on the Internet.
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,668
15,985
AFL Club
Melbourne
Dude is a self confessed white supremacist, his intent was not innocent.
Pretty much this. If you’re sharing a video of a life massacre it clearly means you want people to see it, and if you’re a white supremacist it means you’re sharing it to spread the hate and violence of Muslims (in this case).

If you look at something like this and are not disturbed by it, you’ve got a very sick mind and you really do need psychological support.
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,668
15,985
AFL Club
Melbourne
I understand where you're coming from, as this guy appears to be a piece of s**t. But it's concerning to me that there's content on Facebook.com that, if you share it, you can go to jail for quite a while. We're not even talking about LiveLeak here. I'm sure that, out of the millions of people that shared the video, many were doing so out of public interest. Are they likely to be prosecuted? I hope not.
How intense is the live leak stuff?
 
Top Bottom