Censor right to ban manifesto
Chief Censor David Shanks has censored the manifesto reportedly published by the Christchurch terrorist. It is now illegal to possess or distribute the document, which Shanks described as a ‘‘crude booklet’’. He said it ‘‘promotes, encourages and justifies acts of murder and terrorist violence against identified groups of people’’, and further ‘‘identifies specific places for potential attack’’. Moreover, ‘‘it contains justifications for acts of tremendous cruelty, such as the deliberate killing of children’’. ‘‘There is an important distinction to be made between ‘hate speech’, which may be rejected by many right-thinking people but which is legal to express, and this type of publication, which is deliberately constructed to inspire further murder and terrorism. It crosses the line.’’
Indeed it does.
The bar for censoring speech must be very high. We don’t ban speech because it offends some – or even most. We ban speech when it incites terrible violence, as this document clearly does.
Freedom of speech is fundamental to democracy, and we must move carefully when limiting it. But this advocates atrocity and includes advice on how to achieve it. That’s over the line.
Some will say that a ban in New Zealand is pointless because the document is available on overseas websites. While our Parliament cannot police what happens overseas, we censor objectionable material such as child pornography despite its availability elsewhere. In these situations, the nation is making a statement about its values. In New Zealand, the line is here.
The ban also serves as a practical guide to what is acceptable in this country. Should a resident or visitor not completely understand where the line is, the censor has made it plain. The ban may also assist police and intelligence agencies. People found to possess the manifesto in this country may open themselves to further investigation. When authorities find a single image of child pornography, they do not stop investigating at that point. They dig deeper.
Further investigations must proceed with search warrants, and all of the other protections due to all people in this country.
Some New Zealanders will have legitimate reasons to possess and distribute the manifesto. The chief censor identified reporters, researchers and academics. Others may emerge.
The censor can ‘‘grant exemptions to the ban for specific purposes and to specific individuals or organisations, in cases where it is clearly in the public interest to do so’’, according to the application. This may be inconvenient for some, but looks like a reasonable way forward. How many exemptions are granted, and to whom, will need to be monitored to ensure the censor’s discretion is being appropriately applied.
A further argument against censorship is that it stifles debate about the gunman, his motives and how future bad actors can be stopped.
With respect, that debate has been under way since late afternoon on March 15, and will likely continue for years. The debate is not worse because we can no longer possess or distribute the document. Its contents are well enough understood by the public. This is an example where New Zealand can be intolerant of the intolerant.
The bar for censoring speech must be very high. We don’t ban speech because it offends some – or even most. We ban speech when it incites terrible violence, as this document clearly does.