Freedom Of Speech

In New Zealand freedom of speech is enshrined in our Bill Of Rights Act. From the Human Rights Commission:

The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BoRA), which states in section 14:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

The Court of Appeal in Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [4] said that the right is ‘as wide as human thought and imagination’.

Section 5 provides for limits on freedom of expression, as with other rights:

Subject to section 4 of this Bill of Rights, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

In the General Comment on Article 19 it was stated that it is ‘the interplay between the principle of freedom of expression and such limitations and restrictions which determines the actual scope of the individual’s rights’ (OHCHR, 1983).

Several pieces of legislation, aimed at promoting racial harmony, defending public morals, enhancing social responsibility, protecting children, and protecting individual privacy and reputation, limit the scope of freedom of expression in New Zealand.

How is it decided that these are ‘reasonable limitations’? The Court of Appeal, in Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review, interpreted the test in section 5 of the BoRA to mean that the restriction on free speech must be proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved; the restriction must be rationally connected to the objective; and the restriction must impair the right to freedom of expression to the least possible extent. The Court said, ‘a sledge hammer should not be used to crack a nut.’ [5]

Freedom of speech is an integral component of a healthy democracy. It is one of the things that democracies have and dictatorships do not.

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to say whatever you like about whomever you like whenever you like, you can’t publicly defame someone for example. But you can and should be able to be critical of the actions of people in power. Defamation involves slander or libel against another person or organisation, and an important component of slander and libel is falsehood. Criticism of those in power, as long as your facts are correct, is not by definition slander or libel. The difference is in accuracy.

Most importantly, freedom of speech is the freedom to be critical of those in power, to publicly state their failings, to be open and frank about abuses of power or even just criticism of how power is wielded. Criticism of the government in power is an absolute central component of our right to freedom of speech. When a government removes that right it removes criticism and opposition to its power.

On the evening of September 24th, 2012, the FaceBook page “John Key Has Let Down New Zealand” was shut down. The group had over 16,000 members.

Admins of the closed group have stated it

was the most tightly-controlled and most strictly-moderated FB group in NZ, with strict group rules. ANYTHING that was even vaguely “objectionalable” was immediately deleted, and troublemakers were promptly banned from the group. (from Peter Archer, ex admin, quoted from comments on The Daily Blog).

Shutting down a group populated by over 16,000 members which was openly critical of John Key and the National government is not democratic. You may not like what they have to say, but we should all defend their right to say it.

A new group has been set up, “National Has Let Down New Zealand”. Lets see how long that lasts.

*edit to add: it really does not matter who is responsible for the group being shut down, the fact that is was shut down is the issue.