Last Updated:- No Author? Please read our Author name suppression policy for more information by clicking here. Do you have a story? send newstips to [email protected]
Do you believe in independent owned news? please help us keep the independent industry alive by contributing for as little as $5 /moDonate
Following a statement made by CEO Sam Hudson, it is indicated that thisquality is likely to take legal action against YouTube over censorship of Current Affairs news.
Implementations were added to the legal team that works with our company at a Government level to ensure all New Zealanders are guaranteed reliable news from around the globe without assets the company owns getting taken down by Big Tech.
Censorship is a liability, according to New Zealand laws and regulations around Current Affairs news.
The internet comparison is on its brink; many companies do not ask permissions before posting something or republishing. Content that allows the public notification of such events can be used under fair use with appropriate credit from Government agencies and other sources like the United States President.
When an objectionable video pops up on the internet, authorities have to swift through many processes before it can legally get taken down.
A clear example of content takedowns can relate to the March 15, 2019, Christchurch mosque shootings.
Authorities took several days for the chief censor or officially assigned the shooter’s video which he live-streamed to Facebook and manifesto he posted to a forum online as an inexpedient price. There was a ‘ghost’ legal term meaning ‘illegal publishing of content’ — the final decision is made upon by the chief of censoring.
New legislation was introduced, and it has four main parts. It would empower authorities to ban or filter ‘objectionable’ content if it is related to the Christchurch shooting.
The Department of Internal Affairs has to create internet filters for objectionable content where internet service providers have to block any website that hosts such material.
Live-streaming of objectionable content is an offence under the legislation.
The chief in censoring has to issue ‘interim’ bans on specific content.
Suppose something is posted online that is out of the ordinary and is deemed not objectionable. In that case, it can be moved forward to make viewing or re-publishing of that particular video illegal for the public.
In the case of thisquality, the company posted a video on President Donald J. Trump telling protestors to go home after storming the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., to stop the Electoral College Certification for Joe Biden on January 6.
The video was deemed objectionable, and it shouldn’t have been removed as there was no harm caused by the video where the President of the United States tried to calm the storm from indicating more violence. However, Big Tech is actively censoring the video, which goes against Current Affairs asset regulations under New Zealand law.
Certain government agencies can ‘force’ websites to remove objectionable content, under penalty of hefty fines. This did not happen to thisquality, and the company was never approached to remove content that we posted — tech giant YouTube removed the content without notice or authority to do so regardless of their Terms and Policies under Inappropriate Content.
The Chief in censoring wasn’t notified about the removal of content, and no review took place to deem the content as non-objectionable.