New Zealand governments have a history of censoring information they deem objectionable, particularly during times of moral crisis. This underscores the reality that, despite government efforts to censor information, it will always be accessible by alternative means, similar to forwarding of the manifesto online. Nicola Macaulay argues it's a step too far to ban the Christchurch gunman's manifesto. The Christchurch gunman's manifesto is the 42nd. My quandary is this: for the sake of future political integrity and national security, is the New Zealand Government's decision to censor this manifesto warranted?

Source: Stuff April 16, 2019 18:00 UTC