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
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yes freedom of speech ends at criminal action or illegal behavior. That is where those boundaries exist. If they do not end at that juncture then where do they end?

    • Senal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      So , given that New Zealand and Australia are using their law based framework to deny visa access it’s all good right ?

      I also noted you conveniently didn’t address this in your response.

      Yes freedom of speech ends at criminal action or illegal behavior. That is where those boundaries exist. If they do not end at that juncture then where do they end?

      I’m not saying that laws aren’t useful for this purpose I’m saying that using laws as a baseline without accounting for laws being different in different places is a weak argument foundation, not even mentioning that laws change over time based on unlawful actions being allowed and previously lawful actions now being denied, so not only do you need to account for geographic location you also need to account for time.

      As an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67601647

      By your proposed framework, you’re cool with this because their freedom of speech (or i suppose expression in this instance) is illegal.

      To be clear, if you are cool with that, you do you, I’m not your parent, nor am i any moral or ethical authority. I’m using it as an example to gauge how married you are to the idea of laws as absolutes when it comes to freedom.

      • AidsKitty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Yes i dont have a problem with how Australia or New Zealand run their countries. They can ban whomever they wish. I do have a problem with people wishing we would implement these same standards as it would be a clear violation of freedom of speech. It sucks the kiwis are so limited in their ability to express themselves or their opinions but that is what they got.