Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2019 August 26

= August 26 =

Demographics of Metro Detroit
Detroit is 80% black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:409:280:53DC:C073:FBA5:6784:E419 (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 79.1%, but yeah. Is there a question here? If you're looking for more demographic info, check out https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/17_5YR/DP05/1600000US2622000  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is theoretically possible to interpret OP's message as a request to make this edit. Poveglia (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The word "Metro" makes the 80% figure wrong. That is approximately true of Detroit city proper, but not when all the suburbs are included, many of which are mostly white. See Demographics_of_Metro_Detroit. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Legality of the Unabomber manifesto and other extremist documents in New Zealand
Hello. In general, is it legal to buy or sell extremist documents like the Unabomber manifesto, and similar things that could be seen as promoting violence, in New Zealand? I'm asking because of the recent prohibition of the manifesto of the alleged perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

(and no, this is not a request for legal advice, it is general question about NZ law). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The Unabomber Manifesto does not appear in New Zealand's list of censored titles, nor do I see any other censorship decision regarding it. However, New Zealand's censorship law does not require such prior listing for a person to be guilty of certain related charges. Whether the manifesto would be considered "objectionable" under NZ law, and whether a person would face potentially criminal charges for downloading it, is therefore not something we can answer. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Does NZ have freedom of speech and the press? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * A major difference between NZ and the US with regards to free speech is that in the former, "innocent until proven guilty" is basically reversed. Under NZ law, Crimes related to possession and distribution of "objectionable content" is a matter of strict liability. That is, while there are exceptions written into the law under which you are free to possess and distribute such material, the onus is on the defendant to prove that he is eligible for an exception, rather than on the state to prove the defendant is not. In that sense, "objectionable content" is treated in NZ the way illicit drugs are treated in the United States. Overall though, prosecutions for violating this law are relatively rare, about 10 a year or so, and most of those are for possession of child pornography . Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (full text here) has two relevant clauses. Section 14 states "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form."  Section 5 states "Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."  That is, you have the right to do so, unless the government decides that you don't.  THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.  Seek information from a lawyer in your jurisdiction if you have any questions about this. -- Jayron 32 12:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have a citation for the prohibition of the Christchurch manifesto? It would seem likely that such a prohibition would have to cite the law it was based on. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's an official source: There is a "Chief Censor Office" in New Zealand that makes such decisions based on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. Xuxl (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Department of Internal Affairs - The Department’s response to the Christchurch terrorism attack video – Background information and FAQs seems to back that up. the Christchurch video was classified as "an objectionable publication" because it "promotes extreme violence and terrorism". Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A video is a whole different thing from the written word. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my question was a general inquiry about the legal status in New Zealand of manifestos that could be seen as promoting violence; the Unabomber manifesto was just an example. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant law seems to be deliberately vague, so absent a ruling that something is explicitly not objectionable, I don't think an answer can be given. However, the censorship office has a contact page you can use to ask if something in censored, or whether you can have an exception for educational/research/reporting purposes. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article I linked in my answer above makes it clear that there is indeed an exception for educational/research/reporting purposes. --Xuxl (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm being as vague as I can be to avoid crossing over into the legal advice threshold. From my understanding of NZ law [//www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/latest/whole.htm], Someguy1221's responses here have been spot on. There is no automatic exception for 'educational/research/reporting purposes'. You need to apply and receive an exemption if you believe you need access for those or other reasons allowed. In addition, they touched on a key aspect a lot of reporting of the manifesto seemed to get wrong. As with the video, it wasn't that the classification decisions suddenly made it illegal to possess or redistributed etc in NZ. Rather these decisions just confirmed it was. That said, unlike with the video, I have not heard of anyone being prosecuted for stuff they did solely relating to the manifesto before it was officially classified as objectionable. (I've seen suggestions it happened in limited cases with the video although I'm not sure since the time frame was not very long and it's clear those being targeted were those seen as going out of their way to re-distribute the material and I somewhat doubt they stopped with the decision.)  BTW this PR indirectly linked above may be of interest [//www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/christchurch-attacks-press-releases/#chief-censor-welcomes-board-of-review-decision-re-march-15]   Again that IMO seems deliberately vague. It seems to me it's explicitly not saying that the documents are not objectionable. But instead simply that they don't appear to contain all the same elements so they have not been called in "at this stage".  In truth, I don't think you have much chance of getting any general statements about the legality of such manifestos in NZ. You can try submitting any specific publication for classification [//www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/industry/supplying-restricted-books-and-magazines/] [//www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/assets/PDFs/fees-for-classification.pdf] although nominally you could be refused leave. It will probably help if you have a commercial reason for wanting the classification rather than just an interest in understanding the limits of NZ law. Although that also means you will have to pay the commercial fee. If you make a submission and are refused leave and want to go ahead and possess or redistribute the material well that's the time you really need to speak to a lawyer.  It's perhaps worth remembering that NZ is small country. I think few people want us to spend lots of time and money deciding whether every single publication is objectionable. While this may seem problematic for those who could theoretically be prosecuted, the implementation of the laws and especially their prosecution is IMO deliberately carried out with this in mind. Note also with deliberately vague laws, there's a good chance things will change over time even if there are no changes in legislation. E.g. a decision made now in 2019 may be different from what would have been made in 1999 or will be made in 2039.  BTW, about the Bill of Rights stuff, I suggest reading our article or other sources. Parliamentary sovereignty and other factors means the interaction of the NZ Bill of Rights with other laws in NZ is intentionally limited.  Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, while not in great detail, the decision does document the things considered including the NZ Bill of Rights. I don't think I can link to them directly but [//register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/Pages/Screens/DDA/DecisionSearchCriteriaPage.aspx] and search for 'great replacement' should find the entry for the manifesto. If necessary click on the specific entry for the manifesto and under 'associated documents' there will probably be 2 files, one the original decision and the other the board of review decision. Mentioned in one of them is previous experience in classifying terrorist promotional material. In other words, while not extremely common, they have classified material in the past which they consider similar. You could probably find some examples of these. The closest I found from a quick attempt were 'What a victory for he who got shahada' and 'We came to fill the horror everywhere'. These are video files of an Arabic nasheed with English subtitles.  Note that despite BB's claim, it doesn't seem to me that a video has to be 'whole different thing from the written word'. I mean it can be, and I think people can reasonable feel the issues that apply to the shooter's live stream do not apply to the manifesto. OTOH, a video could simply be a recording of someone talking with no displays of any actual violent content or brutal murders being committed etc.  From my reading of the decisions, I don't think this applied here and I think there was genuine violent imagery being shown but I'm not sure and obviously have no intention of finding out. But the wider issue remains though, even if you find a classification decision for a video file, it doesn't mean the issues considered were much different, it may very well be spoken words that are of concern, nothing to do with violent imagery shown in the video. That said, I strongly suspect there are some other documents classified anyway.  10:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)