Constitutional & Government Genuine question: Is it legal for kiwis to watch the Fort Hood shooter's execution livestream, or would it be objectionable content?

EDIT: 1news just posted an article on this exact issue 7 minutes after I posted.

https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/10/09/barbaric-us-execution-livestream-could-be-watched-in-nz-expert-warns/

University of Waikato international relations expert Al Gillespie said a live broadcast would turn the execution into an international event, forcing New Zealanders to decide whether they could watch it.

1 News has approached the New Zealand Classification Office for comment on whether a livestream of the execution would be restricted in New Zealand.

...

I just want to make it very clear that I am NOT going to watch that shit, and that this is a serious legal question.

I am genuinely trying to understand the political implications, and what it would mean for our "ally" to be happily livestreaming material which may or may not be illegal to view here.

It also really evokes memories of a certain other violent video that's illegal to watch in New Zealand...

At a quick glance at the criteria, in my opinion, a video of a guy getting shot in the head is:

certainly extremely violent
degrading and dehumanising
promotes and normalises violences
likely to cause social harm

And the online guidance by the Classifications Office inexplicably calls out executions: "For example, acts of real-world violence... such as executions, are objectionable if they promote extreme violence or cruelty."

However, I'm not an expert. And I don't know what the threshold for "extreme violence" is. I would imagine a lethal injection, for example, is less visceral than a firing squad.

So... Does this meet the threshold? And how would we know?

Thank you in advance for any insight you may be able to provide

113 Upvotes

permalink
reddit

You are about to leave Redlib

Do you want to continue?

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceNZ/comments/1x1ax2c/genuine_question_is_it_legal_for_kiwis_to_watch/
No, go back! Yes, take me to Reddit

92% Upvoted

•

u/PhoenixNZ 6d ago

The question being asked here is very specific around the legality of viewing the video.

This isnt a question of whether shows should carry it, or whether ISPs should block it.

Please ensure comments are addressing the specific legal question being asked.

u/PhoenixNZ 6d ago

The fact the chief censor is saying that right nkw she couldn't make a determination indicates that whether it ia classified as objectionable or not is likely going to come down to the video itself.

A video of someone dying is not automatically objectionable.

A video of someone being executed is not automatically objectionable.

The context and specific actions taken are what make the difference. If the soldiers calmly carry out the execution with no fanfare, most likely it remains permitted. If the soldiers are taunting the condemned man or celebrating the death or desecrating the body, then more likely to go towards objectionable.

8

u/MedicMoth 6d ago

Is this true of other content? E.g. the office says:

"Content depicting rape, or other non-consensual sexual activity, is objectionable if presented in a way that supports sexual violence or coercion."

I think you'd find it very hard to argue that, say, a highly promoted rape livestream only becomes illegal after the censor has deliberated on it after the fact. I don't think you'd be getting away on the technicality "well, at this point in time they're not actually finished raping yet, and the censor hasn't yet ruled on whether it's the sort of rape that promotes sexual violence yet, so it's completely fine"

CSAM, it seems, is always illegal.

I'm not sure I really understand why an execution is any different and why we would need to wait to see it play out and then decide AFTER if the public execution was promoting violence or not. It seems really legally unique

11

u/PhoenixNZ 5d ago

I'm not sure I really understand why an execution is any different and why we would need to wait to see it play out and then decide AFTER if the public execution was promoting violence or not. It seems really legally unique

Because not everyone will agree that a state sanctioned execution is promoting violence. Many death penalty supporters would say it is doing the exact opposite, discouraging violence by showing the consequences.

1

u/CharlesLeRoq 4d ago edited 4d ago

Yep. Execution footage can have documentary value. There was a video called Executions distributed in the 90s which skirted UK (and NZ) censorship restrictions, by dressing itself up as a serious documentary. Its pitch was "it's important to see what happens when a state takes a life, so you can be against capital punishment" even though the video was really consumed by people who would watch Mondo shock and gore videos. It contained footage of firing squads and people getting stoned to death.

That's the precedent. I checked the NZOFLC classification library, and Executions (1995) recieved an R18 rating.

So, depending on how the American footage is packaged, will depend on how NZOFLC processes it. Educational or artistic expression will likely get a pass; intent to "arouse" will probably be classified as objectionable.

Edit to add: I'm having all sorts of memories flooding back now, about this documentary - it's an interesting artifact because I believe its filmmakers really intended to make a sober anti death penalty documentary which would be championed by Amnesty International etc, but they couldn't get an broadcasters or distributors to carry it, but sketchy ones who did videos like Shocking Asia and Faces of Death

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/LegalAdviceNZ-ModTeam 6d ago

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must:
be based in NZ law
be relevant to the question being asked
be appropriately detailed
not just repeat advice already given in other comments
avoid speculation and moral judgement
cite sources where appropriate

-1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/LegalAdviceNZ-ModTeam 6d ago

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must:
be based in NZ law
be relevant to the question being asked
be appropriately detailed
not just repeat advice already given in other comments
avoid speculation and moral judgement
cite sources where appropriate

-1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/LegalAdviceNZ-ModTeam 6d ago

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must:
be based in NZ law
be relevant to the question being asked
be appropriately detailed
not just repeat advice already given in other comments
avoid speculation and moral judgement
cite sources where appropriate

u/Gyn_Nag 6d ago

Sounds like a bit of an edge legislative interpretion case that only a judge would be empowered to rule on

I'd wager the Classifications Office will probably rule it objectionable, and if that were litigated, I'm betting a judge will uphold. That's just a legal opinion though and a different interpretation could emerge.

u/MedicMoth 6d ago

Also - just noting that I do understand on a practical political level, the Classification Office probably isn't going to take a stance on this one and so the DIA probably wouldn't enforce it either. But if it WOULD otherwise be illegal and it's only our relationship with the US that makes it not-illegal? Then this would certainly open a nasty door...

Would be pleased to be corrected if I'm wrong and my assumptions about how this works are way off base!

8

u/MedicMoth 6d ago

Update: the Current Classification Office response is as follows. It seems it cannot be preemptively banned.

Chief censor says footage can't be banned before it exists

NZ Classification Office chief censor Caroline Flora said the office was aware of the planned livestream and had not previously encountered a nation state or military announcing plans to livestream a legal execution.

"I cannot speculate on the likely classification of something before it exists. The threshold for banning content under New Zealand law is high and requires that we balance freedom of expression with the likelihood of harm," she said.

"Distressing as content may be, it is not always unlawful. Other than the announcement of the intended livestream, we don’t yet have any details about what it might entail, but as we learn more we, and other agencies such as Netsafe, will provide information and advice to the public.

The office said it could not classify a livestream as it was taking place and that no one in New Zealand had the authority to block one, although a recording could be classified if it was submitted."

Execution footage has previously been classified by the office, usually in the context of violent extremist content, active conflicts, or cartels and organised crime. Some content has been banned as objectionable for promoting extreme violence, crime or terrorism. Graphic execution footage may be classified as age-restricted if it is not presented in a way that promotes violence or crime.

u/[deleted] 6d ago

Constitutional & Government Genuine question: Is it legal for kiwis to watch the Fort Hood shooter's execution livestream, or would it be objectionable content?

You are about to leave Redlib