Mediaboss Marketing

Shaneel Lal counter-protesting at Posie Parker's event in Albert Park on March 25. Photo / Dean Purcell

OPINION:

Shaneel Lals column provides a wonderful chance to talk about what free speech is and isnt.

There is the high school libertarian version - you can say anything to anyone at any time, and anyone who disagrees is a cry baby. But thats not a realistic model that any serious person believes in 2023.

In the world we live today, there are a web of rules that even hardcore free-speech advocates like me respect. What they have in common is that they can be fairly applied to all, in accordance with the rule of law.

The Crimes Act has several prohibitions on free speech. You cant directly incite another person to commit a crime. You can say the rich have had it too good too long. You cannot say to an excited mob go and burn down that big house to teach the rich a lesson. Nor can you threaten a person with a crime. You cannot blackmail someone, nor can you be a criminal nuisance (the classic yelling fire in a crowded theatre).

Those restrictions bind us all, but there are others you can voluntarily enter. If you work for a high-tech firm, you have probably signed a non-disclosure agreement, promising you wont tell anyone the firms secrets. If you are sworn into Parliament, you agree to a set of rules called the Standing Orders that govern what you can and cant say in certain circumstances.

If you become a Cabinet Minister youre bound by the Cabinet Manual which includes things like exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional.

So why did ACT and many others spend years successfully fighting against so-called hate speech laws, if we accept all the above restrictions? Why did Labour ultimately decide not to introduce more restrictions on speech, after being gung ho?

In a word, subjectivity. All the above restrictions are matters of fact, or private contract. You can tell if youve done wrong by reading the law, and it applies to all equally.

Hate speech laws abandoned by Labour would have made it a crime to intentionally incite/stir up, maintain or normalise hatred through threatening, abusive or insulting communications, including inciting violence. How could a person accused defend themselves? How do you prove that you didnt intend to stir up hatred using insulting language?

As the Royal Commission on the Christchurch mosque attacks said, The difference between legally criminalised hate speech and the vigorous exercise of the right to express opinions is not easy to capture in legislative language.

When challenged to define hate speech on television, then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said you know it when you see it. Not really the kind of legal precision youd want when defending yourself against jail time.

Usually the point of the law is you know what actions would break it and can defend yourself if accused. As historian Paul Moon has said, hate speech laws are so subjective the accused wont know if theyre guilty until the point of conviction.

ACT opposed hate speech laws because they are subjective. They are inconsistent with the rule of law in a way that other restrictions are not. They would be applied more often against the politically unpopular, meaning law enforcement became opinion enforcement.

Lal says I, hypocritically, only object to free speech when my feelings are hurt, or I disagree. All the examples they cite are of legitimate restrictions on speech that Ive always supported.

Rawiri Waititi should apologise for threatening to poison me (threats). I blocked Golriz Gharamans attempt to speak in Parliament after she repeatedly interrupted mine. If you want the privilege of speaking in Parliament, you must grant it to others (standing orders).

Tusiata Avia performed a poem where she suggested Captain Cook, and white men like him should be hunted down and stabbed with pig knives (incitement).

The Prime Minster should sack Marama Davidson for breaching the Cabinet Manual she signed up to and for being an ineffective minister as Ive said (Cabinet Manual).

Far from having my feelings hurt by Jacinda calling me an arrogant prick, I accepted her apology and proposed we auction the Hansard, raising $100,100 for the Prostate Cancer Foundation, supporting pricks everywhere!

As a matter of fact Ardern texted her apology after I raised a point of order. But my raising it also meant it would be written down in Hansard and later auctioned (standing orders again)!

I could go on but, suffice to say, free speech matters, it is the foundation of a free society, alongside the rule of law it depends on. If you believe in free speech, understanding its lawful limits is as important as defending it against unlawful erosion.

See the original post:
David Seymour: What free speech really is - New Zealand Herald