Would be within their rights to block sites if they so wished. 'The First Amendment applies only to the government, so the decision of telecoms about what to carry could not violate the First Amendment any more than a decision of a newspaper or magazine could,' he explained.

I view it as a debatable but entirely rational editorial decision.' 'One could argue about whether it violates the spirit of the First Amendment for the telecoms to have made that decision. LiveLeak-well-known for hosting graphic videos of combat and violent crime-had already said it would not host footage from the Christchurch attack. It said the video was made by a 'psychopath,' and that it did not wish to be 'a vehicle of choice for those who carry these events out.Serious concerns have arisen over how New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has handled the recent Christchurch mosques massacre. And they donвЂ™t just involve her calls for stricter gun control and decision to ban all semi-automatic rifles. New ZealandersвЂ™ access to online material about him was blocked.В In what has become standing operating procedure after mass attacks, social media accounts connected to the perpetrator disappeared.В Internet service providers in New Zealand blocked access to sites like 4chan, 8chan, LiveLeak, and the file-sharing site Mega if the sites did not take down material related to the shooting.ДЄrdern then announced that the government would consider further policing social media, saying, вЂњWe will look at the role that social media played and what steps we can take, including on the international stage and in unison with our partners.вЂќ In the wake of the attacks, the prime minister promised to keep the murderer вЂњnameless,вЂќ and the internet promptly obliged by flushing the perpetratorвЂ™s identity down the memory hole.

Liveleak new zealand terrorist