'No right to livestream murder': Ardern leads push against online terror content
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern is to spearhead a push to combat violent extremism and terrorism on social media in the wake of the Christchurch attacks, saying the gunman did not have “a right to livestream the murder of 50 people”.
Ardern and French president Emmanuel Macron will host a summit in Paris on 15 May, rallying tech companies and other concerned countries to commit to a pledge known as the “Christchurch Call” – a vow to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.
Ardern said online platforms had been used in a “unique” way to disseminate and publicise video of the Christchurch attack, and there had been rallying cries for New Zealand to take on a leadership role, but the country of fewer than 5 million people could not do it alone.
France was a natural partner, Ardern said, due to its G7 presidency, focus on combating the use of the internet for terrorist purposes, and being the host country for a G7 digital ministers meeting in mid-May.
“We want to maintain the principles of a free, open and secure internet, but this isn’t about freedom of expression, this is about preventing violent extremism and terrorism online. I don’t think anyone would argue that the terrorist on the 15th of March had a right to livestream the murder of 50 people,” Ardern said on Wednesday.
“We all need to act, and that includes social media providers taking more responsibility for the content that is on their platforms … it’s critical that technology platforms like Facebook are not perverted as a tool for terrorism, and instead become part of a global solution to countering extremism.”
Ardern said she had already spoken to global tech company chief executives, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, and those of Twitter, Microsoft and Google. She described the conversations as “really positive”.
“No tech company, just like no government, wishes to see violent extremism and terrorism online, so we have a starting point that is one of unity,” said Ardern.
“What we’re trying to tackle here is a global issue and I think it requires a global response. New Zealand is looking to play a leadership role because what happened here on the 15th of March was unprecedented in the way that is used the internet, so with that does come a responsibility to try and make change.”
The text of the Christchurch Call to action was still being finalised, Ardern said, but there would be a strong focus on practical action, and not just aspirational rhetoric.
Ardern said a number of countries such as France, Ireland, New Zealand and Germany already had internet legislation in place, but more needed to be done towards ensuring better global protections, and tech companies had a responsibility to make their platforms safer.
The Christchurch mosque gunman livestreamed the mosque shootings on Facebook and they were viewed thousands of times before moderators were alerted 30 minutes after the shootings.
The video of the mosque attack was also copied and shared widely on the internet, and Facebook has said that since the attacks it has intercepted and prevented more than 1m attempts to upload and distribute the video again.
The New Zealand government announced on Wednesday that it would offer all victims of the Christchurch mosque shootings permanent residency in the country, an offer that extends to their immediate family members, and which they have two years to take up.
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
Oh, to have a leader like her...
I believe that she can be a driving force in this move.
Inch'Allah!
Since when has prohibition of a thing ever ended the existence of a thing?
What is the difference between "extremist violence" and any other violence? Was My Lai more extreme than Dresden?
Prohibiting the symptom does not kill the disease.
True, but to do nothing encourages it.
How will that play out as against the First Amendment? Will Americans not continue to proudly defend their ability to defend their right to "free speech"? and at the same time ban or demonize news about and warnings of terrorism, naming them "hate sites", as is done in Europe? It is a conundrum, is it not?
No, I live the basic religious moral foundation and love my family and country from within, in a small Texas town alongside a major Texas metropolis.
It's only a conundrum if you aren't Christian and live in a Chinese society that discourages the Abrahamic religions.
No conundrum at all, just different lenses on those dark sun glasses...
You should wear ones that allow you to see through them.
Actually, I'm quite comfortable here - no antisemitism - not like what's getting worse in your "country within".
This one may fall into the yelling fire in a crowded theater category (one would hope).
is it unlimited ?
No. It depends on which party you support.
the party you support is irrelevant, since i'm pretty sure the first amendment doesn't say "for [insert party here] speech is completely unlimited but if you are [insert party here] then it's very limited". the first amendment is not unlimited - so why would this be an issue ? free speech is one thing, but do you consider live-streaming murder, a criminal act, as an act of "free speech" ?
If yelling "Fire" in a crowded auditorium is not considered free speech, then neither should be live-streaming murder. However, shouting down a speaker who has different ideas IS considered free speech, so one might wonder just what the limits of free speech are. My guess would be that the limits are determined by the SCOTUS, and depending on the political and/or religious bias of the majority of the SCOTUS and the ability of the judges to transcend their political and/or religious bias, we will only find out when their decision is rendered.
yelling fire in a crowded place when there is no fire puts people in danger. and has nothing to do with anyone's feelings.
im not sure if live streaming murder creates a stampede for the exits leaving trampled people everywhere... but if you say so. LOL
if speech does not put peoples lives in danger, there is no limit. it is that simple.
there is no exception for hate speech or any speech someone might find offensive.
any person or political party that would limit any part of our bill of rights cannot be trusted.
but live streaming murder? not free speech, a crime for other reasons.
Let's be careful about the term "free speech". It is about legal restrictions on speech. Extra-legal restrictions, for example, Internet forums like NT are not concerned. Perrie (like Mark Zuckerberg) can ban anything she wishes.
Basically, "free speech" does not exist on the Internet.
first you should understand why yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium is not considered free speech - once you understand that you'll find it's not really comparable to live-streaming murder.
that's a good question - since that situation (of shouting down speakers) has happened on both sides of the aisle.
it does make me wonder what SCOTUS would state.. both parties have (in their own fashion) tried limiting free speech (the example of shouting down a speaker is a great example). Live-streaming murder tho is a crime, period, i don't see how it could be considered free speech (although i could be wrong).
Speech, just like gun ownership and religious freedom, is not unlimited. I don't think anyone would argue the right of a media company to immediately take down or block someone trying to live stream the rape of 50 children, live streaming murder and terrorist acts should be in the same category.
Now there is an inherent problem in deciding what illegal activities should media companies be allowed to ban or block since different countries have different ideas on what constitutes a crime. While we can pretty much all agree rape and murder are unacceptable, it does raise the issue with how to react to images or video of those engaged in civil disobedience due to their authoritarian governments. Do we allow North Korea to scrub the web of any of their citizens crossing the border or attempting to escape? They consider it a crime there, thus where do we draw the line between what's "illegal" or illicit activities may or may not be broadcast through the major internet media companies. Or perhaps it's someone living in China simply standing in the way of a tank. Would Tiananmen square have been such a turning point if we weren't allowed to see the footage?
So while I strongly believe internet media companies should have the right to monitor and police the content their users are disseminating through their platforms, there should also be more transparency as to what content is being blocked so we can make sure we aren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater as it were. The baby being free speech and the bathwater being the clearly inappropriate snuff film content.
And the twitter CEO just absolved all white supremacy posters on twitter failing to shut them down because it includes many Republican politicians including Trump. Free pass for them.