Posts by Rich of Observationz
-
large scale derivative exchanges didn't exist in NZ
They still don't. NZX is a primarily an equities exchange.
But yeah, it's probably true that if there had been more sophisticated markets in the 80's, there'd have been bigger fuckups in NZ. This time, the problems were either overseas or in the retail finance company business. The latter was largely ringfenced, mostly because as I pointed out at the time no banker in their right mind would lend the likes of Hanover Finance any money.
(BTW, googling to NZX to check what derivatives they traded, I found this (D-NSFW). Nearly as funny as the period when 0800-REUTERS in the US got you a sex line).
-
-
"It's airport land and airport money."
Somebody was researching whether that land was acquired under the Public Works Act. It could be argued that promotional signage is not an essential aviation land use and consequently, the land should be offered back to the original owners.
-
Cook Straight Giant Weta?
Because a Gay Giant Weta wouldn't fit with Avatar?
-
What will the Red Cross or Amnesty International do with a whole pile of Higgs' Bosons?
Dunno. Personally, I find all of mine very handy for holding the universe together.
-
Crazy as it may seem, Rich, not everyone shares your open-and-shut view of censorship issues
I know that. I'm just giving you my opinion.
Plus I do feel that if you look at the history of censorship in NZ (useful resource) we had a period years ago when Penthouse was banned and publication was a difficult and easy to control process. Then the process got liberalised and the Internet came along, which means that basically if content is legal somewhere in the world (and in particular in the US), it couldn't be blocked.
Now governments have caught up and are using technology to reverse this process. I think that's a worry (and so do various others). I don't share your view that our government is intrinsically more sensible than Australia's and can be trusted on this.
(Also, giving stuff an R18 rating or whatever is classification, not censorship. I don't have a problem with this, so long as one doesn't turn into the other).
-
I guess part of peoples response is that when you have an actual feature movie or TV show, it's made by a writer/director/producer team and some actors. The actors are playing the parts they get given, and there's a clear disconnect between their actual personality and the part. (mostly).
So in the case of American Psycho, Christian Bale isn't really a psychopath and nor is Bret Easton Ellis.
With musicians, there is a vague tradition that you sing about your actual life, or a poetic variation it. So when a rapper comes across as a misogynist psychopath, there's an expectation that they really *are* such a person, and they're expected to live that up, at least when on public display.
In reality of course, Nathan is a blameless young kid from a somewhat middle class background. If he was actually the character depicted, he wouldn't be out there rapping, he'd be in jail.
I guess that's part of the thing.
-
I'm not quite sure on what point at which YouTube take down content or put an adult content flag on it. Certainly, any nudity gets stuff thrown off (though there are a shedload of sites that make a living out of *not* having this rule).
In terms of kids accessing stuff, the internet is full of nasty shit (literally in some cases, though that's illegal in NZ as well). Most children have "parents" or "caregivers" who are meant to monitor what they watch. Yup, that doesn't work. I got to see the excellent movie Phantasm as a 15 year old. Oddly, I've never felt forced to try drilling holes in peoples heads, as depicted at length in the movie.
In firewall terms, the Aussie firewall has gone from child abuse images, through violent games, to a ban on imagery of women with an A cup size. Why should we be any different?
-
Not as things stand. That only blocks child sex imagery, although the video might fall under the definition of "Objectionable" in the Films, Videos and Publications Act.
The Act is -- correctly, in my view -- permissive; far more so than the Broadcasting Standards are. Its practical application is even more light-handed -- the DIA concentrates almost exclusively on child pornography. (OTOH, I think that without any doubt, a video game with the same content would be refused classification in New Zealand.)
Um, the DIA banned an issue of Critic for objectionable content. No video, no pictures, just text that said the wrong thing.
While they *claim* that the GFONZ won't block anything but child porn, it has no legal framework, so that can be changed at whim.
They could easily decide that, given the furore over this vid and it's (possible) classification as "Objectionable" by the Censor, that's the chance they need to extend it to anything classed objectionable, which includes many things.
Once they've done that, it's a short step to banning hate speech sites, anarchist sites with bomb making instructions, sites advocating illegal direct action, Indymedia, Sea Shepherd, Ploughshares, anything like that.
-
The violence problems of NZ society aren't caused by media and won't be solved by censorship.
They're about a tacit assumption that if someone annoys you enough, you're entitled to give them the bash. Like Sione Lauaki, on his third violence conviction and still playing for Waikato.
I think it's mainstream NZ, not rappers making vids, that has the problem.