I now support the shutting down of CYFS Watch.
CYFSWATCH have chosen to repost an item which is clearly defamatory, having been removed by Google in accordance with their policy.
The authors of the site seemingly think that if they only host what other people write, they are immune. This is incorrect.
CYFS Watch has posted two submissions in regards to Sue Bradford. One is inciting an attack on Sue Bradford, immediately followed by a request for Sue Bradfords address, which the authors have stated they will publish.
In my opinion it is reasonable to believe and expect that this action will put Sue Bradford in physical danger.
This is both illegal and morally repugnant.
The authors of CYFS Watch have mistaken the right to free speech for anarchy and non-accountability for themselves.
With freedom comes responsibility, and CYFS Watch has failed in its responsibilities. They are demonstrably moderating the entries and comments, and are therefore fully aware of the nature of what they publish, and do so without displaying any form of disclaimer. They are therefore completely answerable for the site’s content and legally accountable for them.
CYFSWATCH is of the belief that actions have consequences, and MPs should no more be immune from consequences as the rest of us.
Then CYFSWATCH can expect that consequences apply to them as well.
The physical threatening and attempted intimidation of our elected representatives is unacceptable, no matter what we think of them personally.
Evidently CYFSWATCH think the action of passing legislation they don’t approve of should come with the consequence of assassination.
Bradford is a worthy candidate for NZ’s first political assassination - I only wish I had the resources to do it.
Regardless of who wrote it, CYFSWATCH have published it.
This site should be pulled by Google without further delay.
February 21, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I would be very surprised if a post like the one you mention constitutes any such threat at all … it’s a little like suicide you know, you don’t announce your intent publicly first if you’re a serious contender.
The pity of it is that it will be ‘milked’ by her for sympathy, credence for her absolute disregard for the views of the people she is meant to represent. This is an unacceptable arrogance.
Aside from that, the threat that she constitutes to the very social fabric of NZ is extreme.
February 21, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I agree and I don’t.
Simply put this action regardless of it’s legal standing is counter productive to the democratic process.
Bradford is now a victim and her loony legislation will become the background story and slip through even though 80% of us don’t want it.
But hey we’re just the voters and politicians are there to do what they want not what we want right?
Regardless CYFS Watch is off the reservation on several counts over a number of issues and I won’t be feeding that site anymore.
February 21, 2007 at 7:09 pm
What a circle. Sue wants to initiate force on parents and CYFS Watch wants to initiate force to stop her and Murray wants to initiate force to stop them!
It’s free speech and should be fought with more free speech. And I’ll keep on saying that after Sue’s home address is given out and there’s a mob with pitchforks and burning wooden spoons at her front gate. Only when they cross that line of free expression would I be willing to respond in kind.
This is because I’m a mad libertarian blinded by ideology? Works for me.
February 21, 2007 at 7:17 pm
[...] And what a circle. Sue wants to initiate force on parents and CYFS Watch wants to initiate force to stop her and Murray wants to initiate force to stop them! http://hittingmetalwithahammer.wordpress.com/2007/02/21/i-now-support-the-shutting-down-of-cyfs-watc... [...]
February 21, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Rick it stops working as free speech when its used to facilitate an attack on a politician and they knowingly commit defamation.
They clearly don;t feel that ANY rules apply to them.
Thats fine when you’re on the same side but it blows the moment that you piss them off doesn’t it.
February 21, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Just out of interest what is this “force” you claim I want used against them?
They’re in violation of the terms of use, they lose their site. Not quite an M60 heavy firebase with 105’s in support is it.
February 21, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Might be I’m a bit liberal in my interpretation because I don’t see them facilitating anything except viewpoints. It’s just sick, not wrong. And for that they ought not be forced out of having a voice.
If all you mean is that google shouldn’t host them though, well then I agree.
February 21, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Rick they crossed the line the moment they republished something that was pulled which was clearly defamatory.
They called two people murderers when no such judgment had been made against them in relation to a death.
I point out that this is EXACTLY the same situation that Helen Clark put herself in and was force to back down on. These people have made a choice to violate the terms of service and compounded in my opinion it by facilitating the intimidation of law makers.
That libertarian label isn’t silver bullet young man. Accountability remains.
February 21, 2007 at 8:52 pm
“The authors of CYFS Watch have mistaken the right to free speech for anarchy and non-accountability for themselves.”
And politicians in New Zealand have mistaken political power for the “right” to impose their views on the population.
The vast majority on Kiwis are against this bill yet it’s being rammed through against their clearly expressed wishes.
That isn’t democracy by any stretch of the imagination. If people weren’t angry enough to threaten the maniac, two-faced totalitarian bastard sponsoring the bill then this country would be in deep shit.
At what point do we assert our rights as citizens? Just before we shuffle off to the ovens?
February 21, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Somewhere between now and the ovens, I’ll give you call when and we can bomb up along with a few other people I know.
BYO tinnies and we’ll have a barbie on the GG’s front lawn if we have do his job for him.
And one of the problems of this sort of thing is that it is completely counter productive.
Bradford is now a victim and playing it for all its worth and it provides another excuse for censorship. Tell me how saying Bradford should be assassinated is a good thing for the 80% of us who are against this bill because I don’t how it helps stop it.
February 21, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Pure fantasy, Murray. The point at which it will be possible to resist creeping totalitarianism is never that clear-cut.
“Bradford is now a victim and playing it for all its worth and it provides another excuse for censorship.”
So–we provide no excuses for censorship and they’ll somehow, magically leave blogs alone? I very much doubt that.
The way it works is, free speech gradually becomes speech that’s “approved”. People self-censor in order to avoid crossing the boundaries set by the government.
That’s not free speech.
February 21, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I’m saying they’ve pole vaulted over the line on this one and inciting and facilitating the killing of an MP falls right into the category of ever so slightly dodgey.
Or is it ok for people like Gorgina Bayer to say that the EB’s should be forcibly removed from the country? I put them in the same range.
Would it be ok for Farrars Troll Circus to call for the shooting of John Key and hide behind free speech?
I’m saying this approach is more damaging than helpful.
Besides which its tactically stupid to telegraph your shots.
February 21, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I have no problem with most of that. I strongly dislike what CYFSwatch has become but liking it (or not) isn’t the test here.
If a commenter has stepped over the line there are remedies available under existing laws to prosecute him/her.
Shutting down the site is censorship and I oppose that. The slippery slope argument may be well worn and occasionally abused by paranoid people, but that slope exists nonetheless.
If we don’t scream blue murder when they try to shut down ANY blog, they’ll always find a justification for shutting down any site they don’t approve of and we won’t be able to rally support.
A bit like banning smacking, really. :-
it’s been a long bastard of a day and I’m going to pound the pillows.
February 21, 2007 at 9:33 pm
They fucked up when the chose to repost an item pulled which was defamation.
Google had every right to pull them then.
How the hell does that help anyone?
Give them an opening you know damn well they WILL shut us all down. Well everyone who isn’t a shameless socialist toady who gets his instructions directly from the 9th floor.
Tim Selwyn isn’t changing fuck all this week, except maybe his undies.
February 21, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Thought about calling for Kiwiblog to shut down while you’re at it?
I recall him opining that Bainimarama-your poster boy for all non-democracy in Fiji- would be an ideal candidate for assasination.
[I see David Farrar has so far declined the challenge to join up, take the oath and volunteer to have a go at the Commodore himself.]
I agree with you that CYSwatch is out of line on this one by the way.
The only thing Bradford is a victim of is her own clueless dumb ideas. The woman is an appalling controlling idealogue and has nothing but bitterness and strife to offer
February 22, 2007 at 2:18 am
Rally my libertarian allies, rally!
That libertarian label isn’t a silver bullet young man.
I’m sure there are exceptions to my silver bullet but I haven’t found any yet. I’m told I’ll grow out of it.
February 22, 2007 at 5:29 am
“I’m told I’ll grow out of it.”
By people who desperately need to grow into it.
February 22, 2007 at 8:49 am
George you want me to shut down my site as well because I’m in favor of the first soldier to plant Bananarama being the first one to do his duty.
Bananarama is a Mugabe wannabe with no legal or moral authority to take power for himself and use the military to maintain his position.
I don’t like Bradford any more then him - less because she’s fucking with my country - but she at least has a legal right to be a complete shit head in public. Her accountability comes once every three years.
February 22, 2007 at 9:40 am
Ever thought of the career opportunities with the FMF?
February 22, 2007 at 4:14 pm
It’s amusing that the self named libertarians on this site reckon that freedon only applies to them.
Should Fijians choose not to let the silly hipocrisy of whities’ so called democracy dominate their political system any longer they are wrong say the self styled libertarian kiddies, yet whitey can continue to gaily flounce about the world forcing their mores upon all and sundry, and that’s OK.
The libertarians who don’t like what’s hapenning in Fiji are perfectly at liberty to stay the fuck outta the joint and let the fijians live as they want.
Freedom of speech can only ‘work’ if the freedom is confined to the truth. The current western practise of abusing that freedom to spread delberate lies and distortions is a peversion of that ‘freedom’ and will cause the destruction of everybody’s ability to speak out; especially those who tell the truth to power.
February 22, 2007 at 4:15 pm
“Her accountability comes once every three years.”
Does it though? She has only ever been voted in as a list MP, not even people who vote for the greens get a say in who gets ranked where on the list. You can pretty much put the farm on her getting back into parliament after the next election - even if 95% of voters want her gone, it only takes the greens getting over the 5% barrier for Bradford to come back in. Fuck you MMP, fuck you very much.
February 22, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Ure feel free to take the union jack off the canton of the flag, replace it with a bananna, get the fuck out of the commonwealth of nations, stop claiming you have anything thats even a pale shadow of democracy and stop assaulting foreign nationals or we’ll give you a lesson in democracy you wont recover from.
We’ll stop our money going to you.
Have a nice a dictatorship.
Fucking mugabe wannabe.
By the way you’re banned for racism. I don’t give a fuck what colour it comes in.
February 22, 2007 at 5:07 pm
“The current western practise of abusing that freedom to spread delberate lies and distortions is a peversion of that ‘freedom’ ”
Bollocks. You mean only Westerners spread deliberate lies and distortions? And who gets to decide which are lies and distortions anyway?
The phrase “telling the truth to power” gives you away–you’re just another brainless lefty racist asshole.
March 28, 2007 at 12:16 pm
why shouldnt we be able to put there names on the website it is ok for them to destroy innocent familys they dont even investagate they think they have the power we are the parents of these kids and we should have the power it is diffrent if you are beating your kids up but some of us arnt we are angry and left in the dark while we are thinking about what has happend 24/7 cyfs workers dont think twice about us once they have taken our kids so really what is the harm in naming them and if we find out her address and she feels threaten to bad she didnt care when she was threating others