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

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tayl0r

Moderator
Jul 16, 2009
37,081
37,336
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
I think laws that blanket ban anything offensive or believed to be degrading usually stand for a while under protection of a general unwillingness to see that material anyway within the population. Usually people don't mind things being banned that they don't like or want to do anyway.

If the law is used to prosecute people for sharing a video of Jacinda Ardern having a good time with half a rugby team, that's when it becomes a problem in the eyes of the masses.

People who didn't want to see it didn't look.

New Zealand got a bloody nose from this attack and they are doing what they can to do what they can about making amends.

Motivation is important and this guy is made out to be super racist scum, I look forward to the reaction to the little old lady sharing the video that popped up with her friends to let them know what's going on getting sent down for a year.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
9,730
7,822
AFL Club
St Kilda
Another one of these "I don't agree with the view, but freedom of speech" etc etc. Blah blah.



Christchurch man Philip Neville Arps was jailed for 21 months on Tuesday in the Christchurch District Court on two charges of distributing the objectionable live-streamed video of the mosque murders.​
Arps admitted the day after the March 15 attack he sent away the video to have it modified with cross-hairs and a "kill count", and distributed the unmodified video to 30 associates.​
The judge said he would not mention some of the matters Arps stated in his pre-sentence interview because he would regard them as a "badge of honour" if they were mentioned publicly.​
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,686
15,997
AFL Club
Melbourne
I think laws that blanket ban anything offensive or believed to be degrading usually stand for a while under protection of a general unwillingness to see that material anyway within the population. Usually people don't mind things being banned that they don't like or want to do anyway.

If the law is used to prosecute people for sharing a video of Jacinda Ardern having a good time with half a rugby team, that's when it becomes a problem in the eyes of the masses.

People who didn't want to see it didn't look.

New Zealand got a bloody nose from this attack and they are doing what they can to do what they can about making amends.

Motivation is important and this guy is made out to be super racist scum, I look forward to the reaction to the little old lady sharing the video that popped up with her friends to let them know what's going on getting sent down for a year.
Yeah I don’t think it’s quite like that, as CM86 mentioned below, this individual clearly sent the video around with the intention of bragging about the incident, modifying it to include commentary and graphics essentially making the incident comical. This isn’t just your average video share, this is a guy with a clear racist agenda taking delight in watching 49 people die.

One year isn’t enough.
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,686
15,997
AFL Club
Melbourne

Essentially this guy has history, a pretty foul one, it’s best he actually isn’t in society at all. 10 - 15 years inside would probably do the world a lot of good.
 

Tayl0r

Moderator
Jul 16, 2009
37,081
37,336
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
this is a guy with a clear racist agenda taking delight in watching 49 people die.
I don't think someone being a bad person for enjoying horrible things happening to other people is grounds to have them imprisoned if they haven't done anything to actually hurt anyone, in that isolated incident.

I think this is a fairly clear case of projecting what one person did and putting on another.

I don't want us going down a path where your thoughts and values alone will see your freedom removed, but I do understand that our culture is shifting more towards a less responsible for your natural actions circumstance - that because you feel it, then it's right (unless it involved the non-consenting) so the burden might eventually shift from someone actually doing an act being the measure of them to the individual thinking about it being grounds to protect society from them because it's culturally accepted that your feelings will eventually drive you to action anyway - we may as well minority report you now.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
9,730
7,822
AFL Club
St Kilda
Yeah I don’t think it’s quite like that, as CM86 mentioned below, this individual clearly sent the video around with the intention of bragging about the incident, modifying it to include commentary and graphics essentially making the incident comical. This isn’t just your average video share, this is a guy with a clear racist agenda taking delight in watching 49 people die.

One year isn’t enough.
Why are the "free speech" battles seemingly always on the side of bigots?

This guy took pleasure from watching people being murdered.
It's not just a difference of opinion.
Promoting, advertising, recruiting.
If it was ISIS propaganda we'd have no problem locking distributors up.

Why are people once again defending this kind of person, while ignoring the millions of other cases, of good people...

If free speech is really your concern, or freedom of expression, movement, whatever... there are plenty of other things you could fight for.

Why the bigots?
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,686
15,997
AFL Club
Melbourne
I don't think someone being a bad person for enjoying horrible things happening to other people is grounds to have them imprisoned if they haven't done anything to actually hurt anyone, in that isolated incident.

I think this is a fairly clear case of projecting what one person did and putting on another.

I don't want us going down a path where your thoughts and values alone will see your freedom removed, but I do understand that our culture is shifting more towards a less responsible for your natural actions circumstance - that because you feel it, then it's right (unless it involved the non-consenting) so the burden might eventually shift from someone actually doing an act being the measure of them to the individual thinking about it being grounds to protect society from them because it's culturally accepted that your feelings will eventually drive you to action anyway - we may as well minority report you now.
I am sorry, but this isn’t about someone’s freedom. If you choose to distribute material taking pleasure in seeing 49 get blown to pieces, distribute this to other fascists, and you’ve also got a very clear history of being a neo nazi who has mentioned that he wants to ‘bring on the cull’ whilst delivering pigs heads to a mosque, then you really have contravened your right to exist amongst society.

This is exactly the kind of behaviour that Muslim terrorists circulate to spread western hate. It’s ironic you can’t even see that. Extremist Muslim groups prey on vulnerable people by sharing an anti west sentiment populated with violent images, concepts and notions attacking non Muslim people.

How exactly is this different? Can you imagine the reaction a Muslim would face if he/she distributed footage of a terrorist attack on westerners whilst putting up a running body count? I am pretty sure they’d be deemed as a potential terror risk.

How exactly is deeming Phillip Arps any different?

This is a classic case of a rule for a black man and another for a white man.

Pathetic.
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,686
15,997
AFL Club
Melbourne
Why are the "free speech" battles seemingly always on the side of bigots?

This guy took pleasure from watching people being murdered.
It's not just a difference of opinion.
Promoting, advertising, recruiting.
If it was ISIS propaganda we'd have no problem locking distributors up.

Why are people once again defending this kind of person, while ignoring the millions of other cases, of good people...

If free speech is really your concern, or freedom of expression, movement, whatever... there are plenty of other things you could fight for.

Why the bigots?
Bigots fight for ‘free speech’ because to them that is spreading racism and hate speech. There is no discernible difference to a bigot.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tayl0r

Moderator
Jul 16, 2009
37,081
37,336
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
I am sorry, but this isn’t about someone’s freedom. If you choose to distribute material taking pleasure in seeing 49 get blown to pieces, distribute this to other fascists, and you’ve also got a very clear history of being a neo nazi who has mentioned that he wants to ‘bring on the cull’ whilst delivering pigs heads to a mosque, then you really have contravened your right to exist amongst society.

This is exactly the kind of behaviour that Muslim terrorists circulate to spread western hate. It’s ironic you can’t even see that. Extremist Muslim groups prey on vulnerable people by sharing an anti west sentiment populated with violent images, concepts and notions attacking non Muslim people.

How exactly is this different? Can you imagine the reaction a Muslim would face if he/she distributed footage of a terrorist attack on westerners whilst putting up a running body count? I am pretty sure they’d be deemed as a potential terror risk.

How exactly is deeming Phillip Arps any different?

This is a classic case of a rule for a black man and another for a white man.

Pathetic.
At what point did it become too much? Where do you draw the line for someone having enough of a different point of view that an act that didn't actually hurt someone was worthy of removal of their right to exist in society?

I'm asking the question because I want to know what the rule is for everyone.

I'm not interested in pivoting to discussing terrorist actions yet, we are talking about someone who shared a video of someone else doing something.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
9,730
7,822
AFL Club
St Kilda
At what point did it become too much? Where do you draw the line for someone having enough of a different point of view that an act that didn't actually hurt someone was worthy of removal of their right to exist in society?

I'm asking the question because I want to know what the rule is for everyone.

I'm not interested in pivoting to discussing terrorist actions yet, we are talking about someone who shared a video of someone else doing something.
Why do you think he was sharing the video?
 

Tayl0r

Moderator
Jul 16, 2009
37,081
37,336
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Bigots fight for ‘free speech’ because to them that is spreading racism and hate speech. There is no discernible difference to a bigot.
From my perspective I prefer to know where the line is, if we are drawing one at all. The things I disagree with are important.

Life is much easier for morons who need the world to be simple, unchallenged and round edges so they never get snagged on an intellectual crisis. I understand why they want to have every opinion they disagree with shut down, it's much easier to discard people with the "wrong" idea than to bring them along with your idea and change their mind.

The issue is that conservatives want a free exchange of ideas because to say anything is disallowed means that anything can be disallowed, eventually that's coming for you.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
9,730
7,822
AFL Club
St Kilda
I think he is a racist troll. Is that enough to put someone in prison?
No it's not.

So based on the evidence on this page, and other evidence available to you.

Do you think he might have been sending the videos for more than trolling?


From my perspective I prefer to know where the line is, if we are drawing one at all. The things I disagree with are important.

Life is much easier for morons who need the world to be simple, unchallenged and round edges so they never get snagged on an intellectual crisis. I understand why they want to have every opinion they disagree with shut down, it's much easier to discard people with the "wrong" idea than to bring them along with your idea and change their mind.

The issue is that conservatives want a free exchange of ideas because to say anything is disallowed means that anything can be disallowed, eventually that's coming for you.
Where would you draw the line?

Or would you prefer no line?
 

Tayl0r

Moderator
Jul 16, 2009
37,081
37,336
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
No it's not.

So based on the evidence on this page, and other evidence available to you.

Do you think he might have been sending the videos for more than trolling?



Where would you draw the line?

Or would you prefer no line?
I think it's trolling. I think sending a pig to a Mosque is trolling the no pork thing. I think turning the video into looking like a video game is a troll thing to do, making light of it.

I'd draw the line at action, calls to action, that create material harm to others.

I'm not entirely convinced there is a reason an action against a man in which his face is broken is any different to an action against a man in which his face was broken by someone who didn't like gay people. The crime is the violence, not the thought in my opinion. Now I don't like the thought but that didn't hurt someone, the action associated with it did and plenty of thought doesn't lead to action. They should be punished the same.

It's in very bad taste, but very much in form for internet culture to diminish a horrible event into a joke. At what point does that become worthy of going to prison?
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
9,730
7,822
AFL Club
St Kilda
I think it's trolling. I think sending a pig to a Mosque is trolling the no pork thing. I think turning the video into looking like a video game is a troll thing to do, making light of it.
So, we'd agree that the judge would know more about the situation than you, yeah?

Do you think the judge has brought down this sentence for trolling? Or because it was more than trolling and "making light of it"?

Do you think anything ever helped shape Brenton Tarrant's views?


What would you think of an Islamic cleric with a history of anti-west "trolls", who shares around beheading footage? And even wants to edit the footage to make it more appealing?
Would you draw any lines there?
 

Tayl0r

Moderator
Jul 16, 2009
37,081
37,336
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
So, we'd agree that the judge would know more about the situation than you, yeah?

Do you think the judge has brought down this sentence for trolling? Or because it was more than trolling and "making light of it"?

Do you think anything ever helped shape Brenton Tarrant's views?


What would you think of an Islamic cleric with a history of anti-west "trolls", who shares around beheading footage? And even wants to edit the footage to make it more appealing?
Would you draw any lines there?
The judge is required to administer the law. You don't get to argue whether the law is just when you're being charged with a crime based on that law.

It would all depend on if your hypothetical hero in this example, the Islamic Cleric, was actively calling people to do it. If not, then all they have done is show the world who they are and the world will now close the doors they see fit to them, so they might not be welcome in Australia if they are coming here to preach, but I don't expect that person should be thrown in prison for distributing the actions of others, no matter how violent.

I'll throw an example back at you. Person of unknown sex/gender/race has video of soldiers of an non-specific nation gunning down innocent people. It's horrific. Distributing that video would be exactly the same as this guy? If not, why not?

The crime is the violence, not the distribution of the evidence of that.
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,686
15,997
AFL Club
Melbourne
At what point did it become too much? Where do you draw the line for someone having enough of a different point of view that an act that didn't actually hurt someone was worthy of removal of their right to exist in society?

I'm asking the question because I want to know what the rule is for everyone.

I'm not interested in pivoting to discussing terrorist actions yet, we are talking about someone who shared a video of someone else doing something.
What do you think his motivation was for sharing the video? Given his history. It’s not as simple as just sharing a video that someone else did, it’s about the video content. A live massacre of Muslim people sent to derive joy and admiration from others like him. Who knows where the video ends up? Who knows if this would spawn another act like this?

And yes, this is a terrorist action! Of course it is! You simply don’t get it do you? Terrorists aren’t just radical Muslims, they’re anyone who carries out an act of violence. Read the definition. The simple fact you can’t disseminate between a ‘terrorist act’ and someone ‘sharing a video’ really highlights the fact you are very very ignorant to the topic.
E6914165-F6F2-491B-8BA2-3B8EEE3A2254.jpeg
 

Tayl0r

Moderator
Jul 16, 2009
37,081
37,336
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
The simple fact you can’t disseminate between a ‘terrorist act’ and someone ‘sharing a video’ really highlights the fact you are very very ignorant to the topic.
The terrorist act was the shooting, the actual violence.

A video isn't violent. Words aren't violent.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
9,730
7,822
AFL Club
St Kilda
The judge is required to administer the law. You don't get to argue whether the law is just when you're being charged with a crime based on that law.

It would all depend on if your hypothetical hero in this example, the Islamic Cleric, was actively calling people to do it. If not, then all they have done is show the world who they are and the world will now close the doors they see fit to them, so they might not be welcome in Australia if they are coming here to preach, but I don't expect that person should be thrown in prison for distributing the actions of others, no matter how violent.

I'll throw an example back at you. Person of unknown sex/gender/race has video of soldiers of an non-specific nation gunning down innocent people. It's horrific. Distributing that video would be exactly the same as this guy? If not, why not?

The crime is the violence, not the distribution of the evidence of that.
What?? Why did you call him a hero??


The crime is the reason for distribution on top of the distribution.
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,686
15,997
AFL Club
Melbourne
I think it's trolling. I think sending a pig to a Mosque is trolling the no pork thing. I think turning the video into looking like a video game is a troll thing to do, making light of it.

I'd draw the line at action, calls to action, that create material harm to others.

I'm not entirely convinced there is a reason an action against a man in which his face is broken is any different to an action against a man in which his face was broken by someone who didn't like gay people. The crime is the violence, not the thought in my opinion. Now I don't like the thought but that didn't hurt someone, the action associated with it did and plenty of thought doesn't lead to action. They should be punished the same.

It's in very bad taste, but very much in form for internet culture to diminish a horrible event into a joke. At what point does that become worthy of going to prison?
I suggest you research the history of Phillip Arps to determine if he was making a ‘joke’. This isn’t something turned into a video game, this is a racist with a history making this a proud moment for his white brotherhood who hate Muslims.

Clearly he is sharing it with like minded people. It only takes one unhinged type to consume this repeatedly to then turn it into an action. There’s lots of nuts out there.
 

Tayl0r

Moderator
Jul 16, 2009
37,081
37,336
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
What?? Why did you call him a hero??


The crime is the reason for distribution on top of the distribution.
You're drawing comparisons to mythical people of a group you might think I'm going to be very quick to vilify to make the NZ guy's actions appear worse. The mythical guy is the one you're appealing to like a hero.

So the crime is a thought crime?
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,686
15,997
AFL Club
Melbourne
The terrorist act was the shooting, the actual violence.

A video isn't violent. Words aren't violent.
A video isn’t violent?!? Mate this video wasn’t Mary Poppins, it was real people getting shot and killed. It’s as real and violent as it gets! You know that thing called an R18+ rating? Well that’s for extreme content that is FICTIONAL. This goes beyond that. It’s content that is FACT!

I am sorry, but I am really glad our judges see things differently to you.
 
Top Bottom