Loading Chief Censor David Shanks said Tarrant's manifesto contains justifications for acts of tremendous cruelty like killing children and encourages acts of terrorism, even outlining specific places to target and methods to carry out attacks. He said that in banning the document, he and his staff worried about drawing more attention to it. However in the end, he said, they decided they needed to treat it the same way as propaganda from groups like the Islamic State, which they have also banned. Shanks had earlier placed a similar ban on the 17-minute livestream video the accused killer filmed from a camera mounted on his helmet during the shootings. Shanks said researchers and journalists could apply for exemptions from both bans. While free speech advocates haven't questioned banning the graphic video, they say banning the manifesto is a step too far.

"People are more confident of each other and their leaders when there is no room left for conspiracy theories, when nothing is hidden," said Stephen Franks, a constitutional lawyer and spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition. A woman embraces a boy at a March 23 'March for Love' following the mosque attacks in Christchurch. Credit:AP "The damage and risks are greater from suppressing these things than they are from trusting people to form their own conclusions and to see evil or madness for what it is." Franks said he had no interest in reading the manifesto until it was banned. He is now curious because it is "forbidden fruit," he said, and he worries others may feel the same way. He said the ban makes no sense when New Zealanders remain free to read Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. Ardern told Parliament last week that she would not give the gunman anything he wanted.

Loading "He sought many things from his act of terror, but one was notoriety," she said. "And that is why you will never hear me mention his name." She said people should instead remember the names of the victims. Some media organisations appear to be taking up her call. News website Stuff on Saturday published an 1800-word profile on Tarrant without once naming him. "Our view at the moment is that we're dialling back on naming him, unless it's pertinent or important," said Mark Stevens, the editorial director at Stuff.

The New Zealand Herald also published a profile on Tarrant with an accompanying editorial that mentions Ardern's stance. The editorial says: "Our piece keeps the mention of his name to a minimum." News organisations fear Tarrant will use his trial as a soapbox to promote his white nationalist views, especially after he fired his lawyer and said he'd represent himself. But Danish journalist Claus Blok Thomsen, who works for the Politiken newspaper and covered the trial of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, said there are dangers in censoring Tarrant. He said that during the Breivik trial, many media outlets, including his own, were careful to report only what happened in court without discussing Breivik's far-right ideology. He said it was an approach favored by intellectuals and so-called experts, but when he interviewed the families of the victims, he found many of them were angry.