notable suggestion
>>4664577, NZ's first ever Q bread.
Because nobody ever asks why.
No actually, it's the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Surely a civilised society needs some way to determine if something is suitable for, as an example, a child to watch without a parent or teacher having to pre-screen everything?
In the case of the shooting video, I 99% agree with them, the only caveat being that the video is globally distributed so it's pretty ineffectual. But I guess one has to project certain standards.
In the case of the Manifesto however, my agreement is somewhat less. I read it before it was banned and I recognised that some of it definitely incited violence. But with that, I was not compelled to go out and kill anyone. I recognised that these were the views of someone I didn't agree with. It would be the same if they were saying I should pay more tax (inciting theft, kek). Also, the Bible contains quite a few passages with threats to kill non-believers etc. and that has survived censorship for 1400 years (I guess the difference there is that it is mainly God making the threats, so that's OK, kek).
My main reason for being against it banned however are the inconsistencies with what is being reported and what I actually saw in it. For example the claim that the nutter was "alt-right" and that the location were known ahead of time. If what was being reported matched what I knew to be true, and if the left weren't capitalising on it by calling him an alt-right white supremicist, then hiding the evidence he was actually a green-left white supremicist, I would have less of a problem with the ban-at least for a cool off time of a couple of years maybe.
Apologies for not providing sauce, I don't have the manifesto at hand…