New Zealand’s Chief Censor, David Shanks, banned Brenton Tarrant’s Christchurch manifesto—punishing possession (10 years) and distribution (14)—citing "hateful, racist, violent ideology" despite its repellent nature. Critics argue this makes the document more intriguing, while a $102 exemption fee and invasive access forms reveal authoritarian overreach, risking copycat effects. Journalist Nick Monroe faced police requests for download logs, hinting at potential court orders. The episode warns of global censorship trends, comparing NZ’s system to Canada’s, while linking it to U.S. media credibility crises—like Michael Avenatti’s extortion charges against Nike and partisan scandals—suggesting journalism’s future may prioritize control over truth. [Automatically generated summary]
I tell you about an officer in New Zealand whose title is Chief Censor.
That's really his job.
It's a real job for the real government in New Zealand.
It's really on his business card.
He is the chief censor, and he's got a bunch of rules, including you have to fill out a form if you want to read certain things and pay a price.
I'll let you hear all the details in a moment.
But first, can I just invite you to take a second and go to rebel.media slash shows.
And you can sign up to be a premium member.
It's $8 a month.
And what that does is it lets you listen to this podcast, but watch it too in video form, which I think is more interesting.
And even if you don't have time to watch it all the time, frankly, we could use the $8 a month to help pay the freight.
So please go to the rebel.media slash shows.
It's $8 a month.
Be a sport.
All right, now, without further ado, here is the podcast.
Tonight, I want to show you the most amazing case of censorship in the Western world right now.
You really won't believe what I'm about to show you.
It's March 26th, and this is The Astro Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I'm publishing it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
About 10 days ago, there was a mass shooting in New Zealand.
I believe it meets the definition of terrorism.
A man named Brenton Tarrant entered a mosque in the city of Christchurch.
I'm sure it was no coincidence that he chose a place with that name.
And he shot as many people as he could.
He then drove to another mosque and did the same.
In about 20 minutes, he had murdered 50 people and wounded as many.
And he did two things.
First, he live streamed his actions on video on Facebook.
And he filmed himself and broadcast it live.
And second, he uploaded a manifesto, a half-crazy explanation of what he did and a provocation for what he hoped and expected the media would do in response.
As I mentioned last week, that included his desire to sow maximum discord in the world, especially in the United States, he said, especially between different classes and different races, he said.
He said he specifically chose guns as opposed to other weapons because he wanted to pour salt into that debating wound, that social wound.
He was a media manipulator or wanted to be, and the media did indeed grant him his wish all around the world, blaming people who had nothing to do with the murder for political purposes, just as the murderer had said he wanted them to do.
Now, as I mentioned last week, the video was quickly banned in New Zealand.
I can understand the editorial discretion not to show the video.
It's a snuff film.
But that's editorial discretion for reasons of taste, for other editorial reasons of choice.
But the government of New Zealand banned it, not just banned it.
They said it was a crime to merely possess it, punishable by 10 years in prison.
And if you shared it with someone, that would be 14 years in prison.
I bet the murderer gets out in less time.
Why would they ban it?
Well, we've shown you images of ISIS mass murders.
I mean, we don't actually show their heads being cut off, which is the ISIS style.
That's too obscene and shocking.
But that's a choice we make.
It's not actually illegal to show you those murders.
I suppose if we were making pro-ISIS propaganda videos to promote terrorists and support terrorists and recruit terrorists, that would be illegal, giving aid to a terrorist group.
But reporting the news or even just consuming the news as an interested citizen, it's not banned.
I mean, it's gross.
Don't do it for your own sake, but it shouldn't be illegal.
In fact, it's probably good from time to time that we be unsettled, that we see the shocking horror of the world, to know that evil is real, and that not everything is climate controlled, perfectly comfortable, where we're all just happy consumers in a dismified world of recreation and endless amusement and clicking on our cell phones.
Maybe once in a while, you have to see something horrific just to remind you that we live in a world that is red in tooth and claw, that our comfort is not the natural state of things, and it is not just good luck.
It's the result of thousands of years of striving by our ancestors for safety, for freedom, for the rule of law.
That none of these things came cheaply.
That's why I value going to the Holocaust Museum, as I've done.
You can see the horrors to know with your eyes.
You don't want to obsess about them or linger on them too long, but you shouldn't forget them.
That's why, speaking of the Holocaust, we don't ban old movies about Hitler, including his own propaganda films.
We don't ban his book, Mein Kampf, at least we don't in the Free West, because we must study it and learn from it.
And of course, when you ban something, you attach a romance to it, a mystique.
It's the forbidden fruit now.
It's tempting now.
I mean, you don't have to be a 17-year-old boy to want to see something or smoke something or drink something that your parents told you not to.
It's human nature.
You want to see what is banned because there's a condescension in banning, that someone else was mature enough to see it or drink it or smoke it.
And they use their judgment to tell you that you can't handle it, but they can.
Kids chafe against that, but that's just kids chafing against being kids and wanting to grow up too quickly.
But when adults tell you you can't handle something and you're an adult, not even a drug or an indulgence, but an idea, a political idea, something to read, when someone else condescends to you that way and says, I've read it, and I can handle myself, but trust me, you can't.
Yeah, sure, you're an adult, but you can't handle this.
Well, I don't know about you, but that makes me want to read the thing just out of defiance.
And so it is with this manifesto of this murderer in New Zealand.
I've skimmed it.
I've not read it in its entirety.
I don't want to.
I showed you some of it last week.
It's a mishmash.
It's self-important.
It has obvious lies in it, such as this fake praise for a black Republican activist named Candace Owens.
Obviously, it's a sick joke, a smear, a chance to knock down a successful black woman by naming her.
And the media bought it.
Anyways, I want to bring you the news today.
I mentioned that they banned the video hard.
10 years in prison, 14 years in prison.
For what?
What do they think?
Do they really think that the population of New Zealand, and I haven't been there, but I'm guessing it's a bit like Canada, same Commonwealth paternity, and also like Canada, it's a small country next to a bigger country.
You know, Australia, the analogy being like us in the U.S., it seems friendly there.
So they're saying that they believe New Zealanders are so dangerous, they're so close to blowing up, that just watching a video of a murder would cause ordinary New Zealanders to rise up and commit more murders?
Do they really have such a low opinion of their own people that they think they're so subjected to suggestion and corruption and motivation to murder that just by watching a video of it, they would lose all their morality and self-control and suddenly become raging homicidal maniacs too?
Is that the meaning of it?
Why else would they ban it?
And like I mentioned before, if so, why wouldn't they ban everything?
From every killer, from Che Guevara to Mao to Karl Marx or at least Vladimir Lenin, Mein Kampf by Hitler, obviously.
Whatever.
My point is, why are they doing it?
I think it's a control impulse.
They don't know what they can do or should have done to stop this mass murder.
So they're doing what comes naturally to government.
They're controlling things.
They're controlling people.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Ban it, ban it, ban it.
But I think they're using it as an opportunistic crisis, as an excuse to do what they really wanted to do anyways.
Crack down on the internet.
I showed you a letter that journalist Nick Monroe got a copy of of the police literally writing to an internet company and asking for a list of all the customers who downloaded the document.
Just asking for it, with the menacing authority of police behind them.
Who knows?
They've probably followed up with a court order by now to get it.
But banning the manifesto, forget the video.
Not the video, but the piece of paper.
Or rather, in this day and age, the digital document, how do you even ban that?
I mean, it must be in countless places by now.
I bet there's 100 million copies of it by now.
Including in other countries, it took me less than 60 seconds, maybe 10 million copies.
It took me less than 60 seconds on Google to find this story that linked to the manifesto.
So you can find it.
I did it in one minute in Google.
I don't know if those links are blocked in New Zealand.
I'm not sure if it's possible to constantly block new sites where it can be found.
Who knows?
China's great firewall of China is the world leader at blocking things.
Google is helping them with that.
So they want to make a fortune.
Google refuses to do business with the U.S. military, but they'll help China's Communist Party spy on their own people.
I bet Google is consulting with New Zealand too, as they can say they have world-class censorship experience.
But look what I found again from Nick Monroe.
Look at this.
This is a New Zealand government website.
Christchurch attack publication, The Great Replacement, classified objectionable.
That's the manifesto I'm talking about.
Now, I'd agree it's objectionable, but they mean that in a special legal way.
That's their fancy way of saying they have made that piece of paper, that digital document, illegal to possess in New Zealand.
A publication, let me read this, a publication reportedly written by the terrorists behind the fatal attacks in Christchurch has been officially classified as objectionable.
Others have referred to this publication as a manifesto, but I consider it a crude booklet that promotes murder and terrorism.
It is objectionable under New Zealand law, says Chief Censor David Shanks.
Stop for a moment.
That's his real title.
That's his official title, Chief Censor.
Did you know that New Zealand has a chief censor?
I'll give him credit.
At least they don't try and hide the fact with fuzzy language.
Here in Canada, we give them more Orwellian names like the Chief of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
That's our chief censor, or maybe even some cabinet position like the Heritage Minister or the Public Safety Minister or something.
There, they're honest.
It's about censorship.
Yep, imagine having that on your business card.
So let me read some more from the Chief Censor.
It is recognized that the publication has been widely reported on over the past week, with many media outlets publishing commentary on it and sometimes providing links to it or downloadable copies.
Many New Zealanders may have read it, possibly seeking answers for why this dreadful atrocity took place.
Most people reading the publication will not be harmed by it.
Most New Zealanders who have read this will simply find it repellent.
But most New Zealanders are not the target audience.
It is aimed at a small group who may be receptive to its hateful, racist, and violent ideology and who may be inspired to follow the example set by its apparent author.
Well, look, that was the most persuasive ad, what that chief censor just wrote.
That was the most persuasive ad that could ever be written to invite people to find it and read it.
And if you are someone who is so inclined, it won't take you long.
The people who won't be harmed by it are frankly the least likely to hunt for it.
And this chief censor, who has never heard about reverse psychology, apparently, just made it the most interesting, most desirable forbidden fruit in the world.
You couldn't have made it more interesting had they literally mailed it to every home in New Zealand.
Let me read some more.
It is an offense to possess or distribute an objectionable publication.
People who have downloaded this document or printed it should destroy any copies.
Those engaged in further reporting on the Christchurch attack may be tempted to consider the use of quotes from the publication that have already been used in other media reports.
That use of excerpts in media reports may not in itself amount to a breach of the FVPCA, some law, but ethical considerations will certainly apply, said Shanks.
Hey guys, hey you reporters.
You might be tempted to talk about this document that is so interesting, so dangerous, so compelling, so magical that it can magically turn normal people into murderers.
You might be tempted to even just quote some words, but don't you, don't you, or you risk prosecution, or at least I will say you're unethical, says the chief censor.
But look at this, if you really, really, really want it.
And if you're the right sort of person, you know, the kind of guy the chief censor might like, would probably like him, you can fill out a government form and the government will sell you a copy of the manifesto.
I kid you not.
Let me read.
We also appreciate that there will be a range of people, including reporters, researchers, and academics, who will be in possession of the publication for a range of legitimate purposes, including education, analysis, and in-depth reporting.
Those individuals can apply for exemptions so they can legitimately access and hold a copy.
Whoa!
A license to read.
A license to read.
I was in the UK this month and learned about their Orwellian license to be a journalist.
They're so proud of that over there.
But I've never seen a license to read before.
So if you click the link on the chief censor's page, it will download this form.
Look at the form.
Look at the questions you have to answer before you are allowed to get a license to read something.
Why are you seeking an exemption?
How long do you want the exemption for?
Who will have access to the publication?
How will the document be kept secure?
Can you imagine?
I showed you a moment ago, it took me less than a minute to find it online.
How will you keep it secure?
From what?
Why do you want to read this?
For how long?
Before you were allowed to read something.
The chief censor is allowed to read it, though.
And his staff, too, and police too, and politicians too.
They can handle themselves though.
But you, little old you, hey?
Well, you've got to prove yourself to them.
You better answer those questions right.
They don't have to prove themselves to you though.
I mean, really, though, who checked to make sure the chief censor was able to handle it?
How do we know that he wasn't going to go, beep, boop, beep, I'm now a crazy killing machine?
Are we just taking his word for it?
Maybe he's already lost his balance and he's going to go on a murder restraint.
Why does he get a license to read?
Who gave him the license to read?
And that guy who gave the chief censor the license to read?
Who gave that guy the license to give to the guy who's the chief censor?
Oh, and this is my favorite part here.
Chief Censor Controversy00:11:46
And please send in $102.
Oh my God.
So that's New Zealand.
I guess the terrorists really are winning.
That murderer said he'd create social strife.
He said he'd roil the world.
He said he'd cause chaos.
He said he'd make politicians and journalists jump.
And wouldn't you know it?
He is.
I don't know what his goals were.
He said chaos.
He achieved that on his own that day.
Now the New Zealand government is doing the rest.
Say, how long before this madness reaches Canada?
Or do you think it's already here?
Stay with us for more.
We announced criminal extortion charges against Michael Avenatti.
The charges are based on Avenatti's scheme to extract more than $20 million in payments from a public company by threatening to use his ability to garner publicity to inflict financial and reputational harm on the company.
Avenatti's conduct had nothing to do with zealous advocacy for a client or any other kind of legitimate legal work.
That was an announcement today that Michael Avenatti, CNN's most popular lawyer commentator, is being charged simultaneously with two crimes.
One of them, as you heard there, is shaking down the apparel manufacturer Nike for more than $20 million, basically extorting them.
In an 11-page complaint, police detailed and actually transcribed conversations in which Avenatti said that if Nike wanted the whole thing to go away, they'd have to hire him for tens of millions of dollars to investigate claims that they were breaking some rules.
At the same time, authorities in New York announced charges against him for embezzling funds, including from his own clients.
Avenatti, recall, was made famous by his representation of a porn star named Stormy Daniels, who made various allegations against Donald Trump.
Joining us now via Skype from Washington, D.C. is our friend Pardes Sala with MediaIte to talk about this media story.
Pardez, great to see you again.
You too.
Thanks for having me on.
Well, it's a pleasure.
Now, those videos were yesterday, Monday, which was also another great day for Donald Trump.
I say that because Avenatti has become for a while there.
I mean, between March and May of last year, he was on CNN and MSNBC 108 times attacking Donald Trump, and now he's the one being prosecuted.
Quite a turn of events.
What do you make of it all?
I think it's crazy.
I mean, first of all, so many wins for Trump in one over, you know, just the span of 24 hours.
And then also the whole irony of it all.
Just last year, Mueller was predicting that Donald Trump Jr. will be indicted by the end of December.
I think Avenatti was predicting.
You said Mueller there, but yeah, Avenatti tweeted that he said Donald Trump Jr. will be in prison.
That's turn of events.
Sorry, I interrupted you.
Keep going.
Yeah, that's all.
I mean, it's a whole irony.
And it's almost like someone orchestrated the whole story to kick Avenatti in the ass, you know, and it all happened around the same time, you know, like right after Trump got vindicated from the Russia probe and the Avenati thing.
And then following that, there was, you know, we found out about his co-conspirator.
So.
Well, you know, you say it looks like suspicious timing, but if you read the complaint against him filed in Los Angeles, it all happened in the last few days.
And in fact, Avenatti was planning to have a press conference where he was going to shake down Nike tomorrow.
So I think the timing, it is coincidental that it just is another winning streak for Donald Trump.
But if you look at the timing of when Avenatti was shaking down Nike, it only happened in the last week or so.
And I think police and prosecutors were moving quickly because Avenatti was moving quickly and he was actually going to announce his extortion tomorrow.
So I think Avenatti was the source of the timing on that one.
That's my view.
Yeah, no, that's, I mean, that makes a lot of sense because also it was the whole, the story broke 47 minutes after he announced on Twitter that he was going to come out with his press briefing.
So it makes a lot of sense that he was leading the story on it.
He was planning to come out ahead of it.
You know, you mentioned Garrigos.
I mean, he is a familiar person, even up here in Canada, because he's on TV as the celebrity lawyer.
I think what happened here is these celebrity lawyers, they have such a big brand in PR.
They're maybe not the best lawyers in the world, but they have huge, huge profile.
And I think that's what Avenatti was really threatening Nike with.
He was basically saying, if you don't pay me $20 million to investigate this claim against you, I'm going to embarrass you with my friends at CNN and MSNBC and pay me $20 million to make that threat go away.
I think that's really the value of these lawyers.
They're not the best lawyers in the world.
They're the best schmoozers and hucksters and smearers in the world.
And they tried to monetize that.
Yeah, and it also seems like, I mean, it may actually work for them in other cases.
It seems like the media in a lot of cases has more power than even the rule of law, which sounds crazy, but the media has power to stir things in whatever direction they want to.
So maybe Avenatti overplayed his, you know, whatever he thought, however much power he thought he had at the media.
He may have overplayed that card and gotten himself to where he is now.
Well, I think that, I mean, he has, I mean, he has mixed the media and his legal work in the past.
I mentioned he represented Stormy Daniels, which is why he came to fame on CNN and MSNBC.
But after that was done, Stormy Daniels, who is not exactly the most sympathetic person in the world, in my view, she revealed that she was taken advantage of in several ways by Avenatti.
She put out a statement today.
Let me read it quickly.
She said, my statement regarding my former attorney, Mr. Avenatti, knowing what I know now about Michael Avenatti, I'm saddened but not shocked by news reports that he is being criminally charged today.
I made the decision more than a month ago to terminate Michael's services after discovering that he had dealt with me extremely dishonestly.
And there will be more announcements to come.
I ask that the media respect my decision to withhold from further public comment regarding Mr. Avenatti at this time.
I think Stormy Daniels was used by Avenatti.
I think they had a personal relationship.
Neither of them denied that when asked.
But also, she was a weapon to get Trump.
She sued Trump for defamation.
She lost, and she wound up having to pay Trump's legal fees.
I think Michael Avenatti is a serial user of anyone who crosses his path and finally just caught up with him.
Yeah, a serial user and also very arrogant.
I mean, he just comes off as very, you know, he comes off as very pompous.
He thinks that he's a lot more capable than perhaps he's, he thinks he's a lot more prepared than he is and a lot more, he thinks he's more powerful maybe than he actually is.
So all these things are working against him, especially now that it's like, I mean, it has been actually happening over the span of months at this point.
You know, Avenatti was a fixture on TV.
I mentioned the 108, I think it was, appearances in just two months on MSN.
I mean, the Free Beacon tried to estimate the PR value of those 100-plus appearances, and they came up with a number more than $100 million.
I believe.
And when you've got that much free advertising, I mean, he's not worth $100 million as a lawyer.
No one would say who's the best lawyer in Michael Abenati, but he was musing about running for president, which was laughable.
I thought he was looking around saying, I've got all this power.
How can I wring money out of it?
But really, that's no different than John Brennan, the former CIA boss, or a lot of the deep state people who go on CNN and MSNBC.
They have this big platform.
They're not particularly in the know, but they just ring it out for their, if it's a political win or for cash.
I think there's something wrong with U.S. cable news.
And I think the Mueller lack of indictments, the Mueller exoneration sort of proves it.
Do you think these are connected in any way?
I just think it goes to the out-of-control nature of these anti-Trump maniacs on cable news.
Yeah, I think, I mean, I think, you know, something that I realized just in general from the way that the direction that cable news is going, people are watching cable news less.
And it's a fact.
And so all these companies are, they're scrambling to find like a different way to bring in the money.
And for them, at this point, it's like PR, basically doing free PR work for certain people and using the political route and being activists instead of reporters.
Because at this point, if anyone wants their news, they're going to go over to like social media and they're not necessarily going to watch TV.
So at this point, all these cable companies are just really activist networks for people who are partisans.
And all these people who are going on TV are trying to get free PR.
And actually, some people are even paying money in order to get on these TV shows.
Like, I mean, I was a producer at Fox.
And like, we never, we rarely like paid people, but sometimes, sometimes we pay people, but other times other outside bookers would get paid by their clients in order to come on the shows.
So it's like a whole business that wasn't there before.
Yeah, I think you're right.
Well, I think that the reputation of the media party in the United States is at an all-time low.
And I think it's just going to keep falling.
I don't think anyone learned their lesson from what they got wrong in the 2016 presidential election.
I think the Mueller thing was a pure repeat of that.
And I'm sure there'll be another fake news manufactured scandal in the weeks ahead.
In the meantime, Avenatti has a real scandal on his hands, and I think he's going to prison.
Pardez, great to see you again.
Thanks for taking the time with us today.
You too.
Thank you.
All right, there's Pardez Sala.
She's a reporter with Mediaite.com.
Stay with us.
It's more Ahead on the Rebel.
Imagining Censorship Licenses00:01:25
Hey, welcome back.
What did you think about that story from New Zealand?
When I heard they had a chief censor, I thought, that sounds a little, that sounds a little bit over the top, but indeed his name is the chief censor.
Imagine having a business card that says chief censor on it.
Who would want to be your friend?
Well, the answer is all the wrong people, all the people trying to suck up to power, all the people trying to ingratiate themselves, all the people who want to be a censor too.
It would attract all the bullies.
It would attract all the sociopaths.
If you're in an authoritarian regime, that is terrible for normal people, but it is a playground for bullies and sociopaths and control freaks and authoritarians and people who game the system to figure it out how to use the system to their own ends.
Imagine being a chief censor.
Imagine having to have a license to read.
Imagine complying with that.
Imagine being the kind of person who says, I will actually pay $102 and forget about the money and I will submit to the chief censor.
I will answer his questions and try to win his approval before I'm allowed to read this document that is in 10 million places in the world.
That is New Zealand.
New Zealand is our cousin here in Canada, and that will infect us too, I promise you.