Censorship and Thought Control

She is easily found on the internet . At the moment we are a fairly independent nation politically and David Seymour seems to be his own man and pretty decent guy . 

With the govt restricting Owen’s entry and denying Thiels application to build a house in Wanaka it seems more like a libertarian suppression ploy than freedom of speech . Again Seymour should be able to paddle his own canoe and represent his constituents without the help of Owen’s and Thiel .

And that’s it in a nutshell it seems . The EU , UK , G7 , Australia and Canadian Govts have decided they don’t want a bar of it and looks like our Govt has too .

If our govt doesn't want a bar of it, they should tell us why it's so important to ban her.

They haven't done that. (as far as I'm aware at least)

Why not?

Because they disagree with what she says? 

That's a very slippery slope.

Do you really think the US govt has sent her?

She was booked to come about 6 months ago, back when one particular candidate was the longest of long shots to become president of 'merica again...

ok so lets assume that all of that is true, and lets go further and say Thiel is opening sponsoring or even paying her.

Is that a reason to ban her coming here to talk?

Would the same apply for some Democrat 'operative'? 

Would we also ban that person?

If the messaging was going to be the same I’m sure they would be banned . Section 61 of the humans rights act in NZ is probably the Govts fall back argument .

But WTF is she coming here ? Where does NZ fit in the long game these dudes are playing ? That intrigues me far more than the freedom of speech horse she’s riding in on .

The problem is em, she's been denied entry because other countries denied her entry.

That's dumb a/f if ever I heard a reason to deny someone entry. 

Have we turned into a kindergarten and lost our ability to make our own decisions.

As the FSU said, should every country deny Salman Rushdie entry because Iran denied him entry.

All the crayon munchers at immigration have done is raise her profile about 10 fold.

You might be right there is a long game by some rich guy, but that seems like a much longer bow to draw than what she might or might not be espousing.  

And she's not riding in on the back of FoS, she's a public speaker, if people want to pay to listen to her then that is their choice unless she's breaking some of our laws.

Clue - she's not or they'd have a valid reason to deny her entry.

So Aust has rammed through the under 16 socials ban. Got it in on the last day of sitting of the year. One of the criticisms of the bill is it was rushed and is bad legislation...

On first cut, it sounds like a great idea to keep kids off socials. Not sure if that is the role of govt though. Anyway, check out the loop holes:
"Messaging apps", "online gaming services" and "services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform.

Then there is the personal responsibility thing:
Under the laws, which will not come into force for another 12 months, social media companies could be fined up to $50 million for failing to take "reasonable steps" to keep under 16s off their platforms.

There are no penalties for young people or parents who flout the rules.

Luckily, you wont be forced to hand over your passport details to Musk or Meta though, which is good, but no idea how a Social Media Platform verifies your age otherwise?
Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.

All up, it looks like it is going to be a dog's breakfast.
www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/535124/children-under-16-to-be-banned-from-social-media-after-australian-senate-passes-world-first-laws