Summary

Candace Owens, a U.S. conservative commentator, has been denied a visa to enter New Zealand for a speaking tour after being banned from Australia.

Australian officials barred her in October, citing her Holocaust denial remarks and potential to incite discord, following calls from Jewish groups.

New Zealand immigration laws prohibit entry to individuals banned from other countries.

Owens, known for controversial statements on topics like Black Lives Matter and vaccines, had planned to discuss free speech and Christianity at events in both countries. Tickets for her tour remain on sale.

  • AidsKitty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    3 days ago

    Threatening others is a crime. Generating false AI videos to harm another person’s reputation is a crime. Opinions are not crimes. It’s really not that complicated. People want to pretend it is complicated so they can control what can be said to gain power. Really not complicated.

    • Mrfiddles@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      But what if your opinion is threatening to others? If you believe that white people are inherently superior to other races and it is right for them to be served by the inferior races, then expressing that opinion is inherently threatening to many non-whites.

      Sure, I’ve given hyperbolic examples, because I wanted to demonstrate that you can use freedom of expression to make threats, but there will also be examples that are in more of a grey area. There’s nothing inherently threatening about the Confederate flag. If you had flown it in 1600 people would’ve just said “cool flag, what does it mean?”.

      Now however, many people see it as a threat, a constant reminder of how things used to be for their ancestors. Expressing your opinion by flying that flag says to those people “I want your children to live as your forefathers did”

      Now, not everyone who flies that flag is making a threat, but some of them absolutely are. So what do we do?

      I’m not saying I have a one size fits all solution. Simply banning anything that neo-nazis adopt clearly isn’t practical and could also be easily abused by the government to quash dissent. I’m just pointing out that it’s not a simple fucking problem.

      • AidsKitty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        It is pretty simple. If an action\opinion is deemed threatening then laws are created to stop that action\opinion. If there is no law making it illegal then it is just an opinion. So you can have a flag with a swastika, a confederate flag, BLM, OR LGBTQ.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Dude, you’re complaining about a nation using its laws to prevent her from speaking. If your requirement is if laws prevent something it’s fine, then I don’t know what you’re discussing anymore. I think you need to return to the basics of your position and reconsider it for a moment.