New Zealand mosque massacre sparks debate on free speech

New Zealanders are debating the limits of free speech after their chief censor banned a 74-page manifesto written by the man who slaughtered 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch.

The ban means anybody caught with the document on their computer could face up to ten years in prison, while anyone caught sending it could get 14 years.

Some say the ban goes too far and risks lending both the document and the gunman mystique. At the same time, local media organisations are debating whether to even name the Australian charged with murder in the March 15 attacks, 28-year-old Brenton Tarrant, after New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern vowed she would never mention him by name.

Chief censor David Shanks said Tarrant’s manifesto contains justifications for acts of tremendous cruelty such as killing children and encourages acts of terrorism, even outlining specific places to target and methods to carry out attacks.

Admitting that he and his staff worried that the ban would draw more attention to the manifesto, he said they decided they needed to treat it the same way as propaganda from terrorist groups such as Islamic State, which they have also banned.

Shanks placed a similar ban on the 17-minute livestream video the killer filmed from a camera mounted on his helmet during the shootings. He said researchers and journalists could apply for exemptions from both bans.

But while free speech advocates haven’t questioned banning the graphic video, they said banning the manifesto is a step too far.

“People are more confident of each other and their leaders when nothing is hidden,” said Stephen Franks, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition. “The damage and risks are greater from suppressing these things than they are from trusting people to form their own conclusions.”

Franks said the ban makes no sense when New Zealanders remain free to read Adolf Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf.

Ardern told Parliament last week that she would not give thegunmananythinghewanted. “He sought many things from his act of terror but one was notoriety,” she said. “And that is why you will never hear me mention his name.”

News website Stuff published an 1,800-word profile of Tarrant without naming him. The New Zealand Herald also published a profile of him with an accompanying editorial that mentions Ardern’s stance.

There are fears Tarrant will use his trial as a soapbox to promote his white nationalist views, after he sacked his lawyer and said he would represent himself.