The original video was viewed about 4,000 times on Facebook before removal.īut at least one person was able to record the livestream of the video before the company could remove it. And no users reported the post to Facebook’s content moderators during the live stream, an important signal for the company to catch and take down harmful content before it spreads virally across the site.įacebook said it had removed the attacker’s video minutes after the New Zealand police reached out to the company after the shootings. Fewer than 200 people watched the killer’s shooting spree live as it occurred, according to Guy Rosen, vice president of product management at Facebook. On Wednesday evening, Facebook gave an explanation for some of the concerns about the spread of the video in a blog post. She added that such spaces included social media platforms and the comments sections of news websites, as well as dedicated white supremacist forums.įacebook, the platform used by the Christchurch killer to broadcast the attack on one of its marquee products, Facebook Live, has been under pressure to explain its role in how the video proliferated. Analysts said there was often a mistaken assumption that white supremacist material is hidden away on parts of the internet that are difficult to reach. The cases underscore the challenge that social media companies face in thwarting and deleting objectionable activity on their platforms.
“It’s hard to know where the line is drawn,” he said, adding that employment law was still developing in the area. An Auckland medical clinic said on Thursday that it had suspended a senior doctor, pending an investigation, after being alerted to anti-Islamic comments he made on a blog several years ago.Īndrew Scott-Howman, a New Zealand employment lawyer, said he had seen a growing number of cases in which workers were accused of “bringing their employers into disrepute,” which he said was a more subtle charge than outright criminal activity. If charged and convicted, she would face a fine of 7,000 New Zealand dollars, or about $4,800.Ĭriminal charges were not the only possible consequence of having publicized the attack. The police told The New Zealand Herald that they had yet to decide whether to charge her under the Human Rights Act, a rarely used provision that prohibits writings that incite racial disharmony.
The restrictions mean New Zealanders could face legal consequences for intentionally looking at the Christchurch killer’s video, which may have been seen millions of times around the world.Ī Christchurch teenager, whose name has not been released, was denied bail on Monday over charges that he had posted a photograph of Al Noor Mosque, one of the two that were attacked, a week before the shootings, with the caption “target acquired.” He was also charged with reposting the video.Įach could spend as much as 14 years in jail if found guilty.Īnd a woman in Masterton, on the North Island of New Zealand, was arrested over comments she made on her Facebook page after the attacks. New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairs includes a chief censor, an official who has the authority to determine what material is forbidden. While freedom of expression is a legal right in New Zealand, the parameters are more restrictive than the First Amendment guarantees in the United States. Others could face related charges in connection with publicizing the terrorist attack, under a human-rights law that forbids incitement of racial disharmony. But under New Zealand law, many others could face charges for spreading or perhaps even possessing all or part of the 17-minute Facebook Live video streamed by the killer as he methodically shot the victims.Īs of Thursday, at least two people had been charged with sharing that video via social media, under a law that forbids dissemination or possession of material depicting extreme violence and terrorism. CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand - A lone white supremacist is the suspect in the Christchurch mosque killings.