NZ reddit mods removing threads on free speech

People using reddit have been complaining about r/newzealand threads on free speech being locked or removed. It’s seen by some as an attempt to control or limit speech on, ironically, free speech, which has been a very popular topic over the past week or two.

Here at YourNZ threads on free speech and Molyneux and Southern have remained popular.

reddit: Mods locking/removing threads related to the fascism/free speech debate for simply being about the same subject.

There were three new threads this morning, all of which were locked and then removed.

All three were different links. One was a tweet, one was an article on the DailyBlog, one was an article from Trotter’s web site. All three were locked and removed, with links directing people to a discussion over 13 hours ago under a NZH article submission about Lauren Southern – so not even directly related.

No thread broke the rules yet the mods seem to be actively stifling the threads for god knows what reason. Bit ironic, no?

So, what’s up mods? Can we expect this to happen with other subjects you don’t like? Or perhaps I’ve got it wrong…

edit: keep in mind we are now unable to submit an article from Chris Trotter because the mods are removing it. There are no threads for this article yet it is being removed.

Taubin:

There’s absolutely not been enough discussion about this at all, and the mods are TOTALLY removing all of the posts about it…

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8z962x/re_mainstream_nz_media_coverage_of_lauren/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8xxdfw/lauren_southern_on_radiolive/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8x7edz/simon_bridges_backs_free_speech_after_lauren/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8wh4ji/lauren_southern_nz_show_cancelled/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8welxr/farright_speaker_going_to_insult_all_of_us/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8y1xfa/freedom_of_speech_the_more_you_know_the_less_you/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8y1wow/chris_trotter_do_we_really_lack_the_courage_to/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8xy3l4/free_speech_as_a_cover_for_hate_laura_oconnell/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8xklx2/free_speech_group_raises_50k_to_challenge/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8wofvh/editorial_tolerance_is_a_virtue/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8welxr/farright_speaker_going_to_insult_all_of_us/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8nnq3c/controversial_speaker_banned_from_uk_to_tour_nz/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8xtv8y/don_brash_discusses_legal_action_over_farright/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8z9dvm/free_speech_group_hires_qc_confirms_court_fight/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8yh6st/theres_no_such_thing_as_free_speech/

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/8wsk07/oscar_kightley_we_have_the_freedom_not_to_stand/

Nope, topic totally hasn’t been beaten to death yet. Better post multiple more posts about it every day from every blog we can find!

Cotirani:

Meh, I’m with the mods on this one. There’s no new information coming with these new links – they’re just random opinion pieces. And there’s a discussion thread that’s only half a day old.

We’ve had over 1000 comments on the topic so far, and the mods have pretty much let the discussions run free. Can we not jump to conclusions like ‘the mods are stifling the threads’?

renedox:

Different links, same subject. No radically new information is being presented and the subject has been hashed and rehashed for well over a week almost every day in the sub.

It isn’t that the we hate the subject, its got to the point where they’re just “duplicate” links and borderline spam.

d8sconz:

Damn, how many ways is this answer fucked up.

No radically new information is being presented

Thanks for your opinion. I’d rather make that assessment for myself.

the subject has been hashed and rehashed for well over a week almost every day in the sub.

Which tells me it’s a highly interesting and popular topic. Great strategy to start dumping those.

It isn’t that the we hate the subject…

Which is the point. Love it or hate it, you’re free to ignore it. That’s what reddit is. I personally have zero interest in the topic and have clicked exactly zero of the articles and consequently have zero sense of being spammed, trolled or inconvenienced.

It’s common for people to complain about things they can easily avoid if the topics don’t interest them.

computer_d:

OK so consider we do the same to China’s influence in NZ? We’ve had countless threads about that, should we delete all future submissions?

It’s a slippery slope IMO.

SieDerpingtonV:

The only slippery slope is you going from “several threads from this morning” to “delete all future submissions”.

computer_d:

This has happened numerous times in the past such as when John Key resigned: the mods were deleting any thread, didn’t matter what was in it or where it was from, because we had already had one thread on him resigning.

Do you not see an issue with this?

The problem is the thread they directed people to was about Lauren Southern. Trotter’s article which the mods won’t allow to be submitted isn’t about Lauren Southern at all.

CyclopsFishInMyWater:

The rule is no duplicates so I guess the interpretation of ‘duplicate’ is up to the mods.

I guess my question would be how do we track the evolution of a topic if anything on the same topic is removed apart from the original post? Are we not allowed to share opinion pieces for a news story that has already been posted? Because if so you can forget about pretty much all opinion pieces.

Grotskii_

Boo hoo, this isn’t a democracy or a place of free speech, the Mods can choose what goes on and what doesn’t.

If you want total freedom go to Voat

Free speech is only as free as those who make and enforce the rules on any given forum.

Leave a comment

13 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  July 22, 2018

    Oscar Kightley likes free speech, but only for himself. Complains other opinions are divisive.
    Well, yes, that is kind of the idea. Stuff blocks comments.
    https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/105659329/oscar-kightley-this-free-speech-victory-tastes-a-little-strange

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  July 22, 2018

      Oscar: “I’m one of those people who dwells in the grey area between believing in free speech and then denying it if that speech spits hate, needlessly antagonises, offends large swathes of the community and leads to hate crimes.”

      Hate crimes – yes, but if he believes free speech shouldn’t be given to those that “needlessly antagonises” or “offends large swathes of the community” then he has no idea what free speech is.

      Reply
      • Do you think that someone has the right to stand in the street using obscene and abusive language to people passing by in the interests of free speech ?

        Should I have to put up with someone calling me a fucking bitch and worse in a supermarket (not that anyone has, but it’s a public place) because telling them not to do so is going against their right to free speech ? If someone in the street called you a motherfucking cunt and other such charming things, is that their right ?

        Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to abuse or incite hate crimes.

        Freedom of expression is limited, When I saw a particulary inane vanity plate and looked up the site to see what someone would pay for this drivel (over $1000 for a piece of metal with 6 letters on it ) I saw that obscenities were not permitted. And when I succumbed and ordered a personalised bank card, I saw a rule that offensive images were not permitted (who would want one ?)

        Reply
        • David

           /  July 22, 2018

          “Should I have to put up with someone calling me a fucking bitch and worse in a supermarket (not that anyone has, but it’s a public place) because telling them not to do so is going against their right to free speech ? If someone in the street called you a motherfucking cunt and other such charming things, is that their right ?”

          No, this would likely be considered threatening behavior and is rightfully a crime.

          “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to abuse or incite hate crimes.”

          Incitement to violence and threatening behavior are both crimes.

          There is a big difference between these things and a much looser idea of “needlessly antagonises”

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  July 22, 2018

            The insults are not threats, just insults. They don’t incite violence, simply express an opinion…

            Therefore, they should be classed as free speech and defended by those who believe that this is an absolute right.

            Is my right not to be called something greater than someone else’s right to call me that or not ?

            Reply
        • PDB

           /  July 22, 2018

          As David says – “needlessly antagonises” or “offends large swathes of the community” is such a broad definition that Oscar would be banning all sorts of people from speaking.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  July 22, 2018

            I suspect that most people would be offended by being called those things, so is the speaker’s or the hearer’s right paramount ?

            Reply
            • It may well, in which case we do NOT have free speech.

              It’s always going to be subjective.

            • PDB

               /  July 22, 2018

              Some free speech has consequences when it is seen to break the law of the country you are speaking in. Your argument amounts to saying we have no freedom in this country to do anything because we can’t go onto someone’s private land without permission for instance. Its not an ‘all or nothing’ situation.

              The two speakers this whole discussion is about do not fall into this category and where or whom they speak to should not be an issue in this country & Goff should not be enforcing his personal beliefs as to what is acceptable speech or not onto people. The fact he has changed his reasons for not allowing them to speak at Council venues suggests he realises he’s in the wrong. Even then should the threat of protest actions be enough to stop events going ahead? No – and hence his whole argument again falls apart.

  2. sorethumb

     /  July 23, 2018

    NZ reddit mods removing threads on free speech — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

    It sounds like censorship to me.

    Reply
  1. NZ reddit mods removing threads on free speech — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s