This one sentence illustrates a major revolution. We all know it – the internet and digital age has changed everything.
Everything? Well, maybe not everything. Like taxes and death, there are some dependables in life. I would suggest a government’s propensity to censorship and speech regulation is one of them.
On Thursday, we saw yet again that even in a liberal, democratic society with longstanding civil liberties, governments are always keen to reach for a bit more than they should.
The Department of Internal Affair’s public consultation document proposes a new law establishing a “regulator” to oversee the modern content landscape. The Classifications Act will be gone, along with the Broadcasting Standards Authority and other industry groups.
While Parliament would establish the regulator, outlining its remit, it would be the regulator itself that decides how these powers are used.
A series of codes will be drafted to outline what content is acceptable and what content is prohibited. These codes will be written by industry, with the regulator ultimately approving them and having veto powers if they don’t go far enough.
What’s in scope? Pretty much everything. Media outlets (TV, print, radio) of course, but also some Substack accounts and personal blogs (if you’ve got a strong following). Heck, the Free Speech Union, with 80,000 supporters nationwide, would be regulated.
And significantly, content on social media platforms is also in scope. In fact, DIA makes it clear that that’s kind of the point.
Things won't change too much for major media outlets, but for the first time ever, your tweets, comments on Facebook, and waxing-lyrical on LinkedIn will be subject to oversight by a government watchdog.
This raises (at least) two major flags in my mind.
Firstly, how can these new codes, which will have significant implications on individuals' free speech, be drafted without the public having input into what the codes prohibit? There is no democratic accountability in this process, where Kiwi citizens get to have their voices heard, and if they’re not listened to, they can vote the politicians out.
This approach separates significant responsibility away from those who, first of all, are supposed to bear these responsibilities, but second, are accountable to voters.
That’s because at the heart of censorship is a great fear of the common Kiwi. We may romanticise them in a condescending way as inclusive, innovative, friendly, and reliable (all the things Kiwis are lauded for overseas), but don’t you dare actually trust them with the ability to talk amongst themselves freely; or at least not without a government regulator to make sure it’s ka pai.
The proposed structure of a regulator, with a code drafted away from Parliament and political accountability, is a censor's greatest dream and will ultimately be weaponised to suppress unpopular or disliked perspectives and opinions.
Call this cynical, or call it a clear reading of history. Both are probably true.
These codes will apply to all platforms, whether or not they sign up – gone are voluntary opinions.
And remember, the speech and content that will be regulated is all legal. New Zealand already has significant regulation in place.
As just one example, the Harmful Digital Communications Act already places fairly strict limitations on some content or forms of speech. The content the new regulator is looking to oversee is not child exploitation, terrorist activity, or material that encourages self-harm. That is all indisputably already illegal in New Zealand.
This is about “harmful” ideas that make individuals “feel unsafe”. This is about silencing certain perspectives, views, or beliefs.
Secondly, why do we think this will work, and what will the unintended consequences be?
While the intention to address “safety” and online “harm” is arguably laudable, the cure is worse than the disease. This is an inelegant solution to the “lawful but awful” category of speech, which is best addressed through counter-speech.
Frameworks of this kind do nothing to increase mature discourse or community interconnectedness. On the contrary, they breed suspicion and division.
Undoubtedly, content online can cause hate and harm. Free speech is the solution to this, as we use our voices to speak up for tolerance, inclusion, and diversity.
Silencing Kiwis online does not promote social cohesion or build trust......The full article is published HERE
Jonathan Ayling is the Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.
The Department of Internal Affair’s public consultation document proposes a new law establishing a “regulator” to oversee the modern content landscape. The Classifications Act will be gone, along with the Broadcasting Standards Authority and other industry groups.
While Parliament would establish the regulator, outlining its remit, it would be the regulator itself that decides how these powers are used.
A series of codes will be drafted to outline what content is acceptable and what content is prohibited. These codes will be written by industry, with the regulator ultimately approving them and having veto powers if they don’t go far enough.
What’s in scope? Pretty much everything. Media outlets (TV, print, radio) of course, but also some Substack accounts and personal blogs (if you’ve got a strong following). Heck, the Free Speech Union, with 80,000 supporters nationwide, would be regulated.
And significantly, content on social media platforms is also in scope. In fact, DIA makes it clear that that’s kind of the point.
Things won't change too much for major media outlets, but for the first time ever, your tweets, comments on Facebook, and waxing-lyrical on LinkedIn will be subject to oversight by a government watchdog.
This raises (at least) two major flags in my mind.
Firstly, how can these new codes, which will have significant implications on individuals' free speech, be drafted without the public having input into what the codes prohibit? There is no democratic accountability in this process, where Kiwi citizens get to have their voices heard, and if they’re not listened to, they can vote the politicians out.
This approach separates significant responsibility away from those who, first of all, are supposed to bear these responsibilities, but second, are accountable to voters.
That’s because at the heart of censorship is a great fear of the common Kiwi. We may romanticise them in a condescending way as inclusive, innovative, friendly, and reliable (all the things Kiwis are lauded for overseas), but don’t you dare actually trust them with the ability to talk amongst themselves freely; or at least not without a government regulator to make sure it’s ka pai.
The proposed structure of a regulator, with a code drafted away from Parliament and political accountability, is a censor's greatest dream and will ultimately be weaponised to suppress unpopular or disliked perspectives and opinions.
Call this cynical, or call it a clear reading of history. Both are probably true.
These codes will apply to all platforms, whether or not they sign up – gone are voluntary opinions.
And remember, the speech and content that will be regulated is all legal. New Zealand already has significant regulation in place.
As just one example, the Harmful Digital Communications Act already places fairly strict limitations on some content or forms of speech. The content the new regulator is looking to oversee is not child exploitation, terrorist activity, or material that encourages self-harm. That is all indisputably already illegal in New Zealand.
This is about “harmful” ideas that make individuals “feel unsafe”. This is about silencing certain perspectives, views, or beliefs.
Secondly, why do we think this will work, and what will the unintended consequences be?
While the intention to address “safety” and online “harm” is arguably laudable, the cure is worse than the disease. This is an inelegant solution to the “lawful but awful” category of speech, which is best addressed through counter-speech.
Frameworks of this kind do nothing to increase mature discourse or community interconnectedness. On the contrary, they breed suspicion and division.
Undoubtedly, content online can cause hate and harm. Free speech is the solution to this, as we use our voices to speak up for tolerance, inclusion, and diversity.
Silencing Kiwis online does not promote social cohesion or build trust......The full article is published HERE
Jonathan Ayling is the Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.
4 comments:
Yup, she's a gone burger with this little pious bit of BS. RIP free speech if this one goes through. Such nice and kind people.
Confirms the need for blanket repeal of many laws including this one.......
Ardern addressed the UN and said " Free speech is a dangerous weapon, (we must control it)".
As she was already censoring the NZ MSM with her PIJFunding, this address was never published in NZ
Much criticism globally.
Is this democracy when the state controls free speech ?
This is in lockstep with all other western nations. NWO one world communist government getting annoyed about these conspiracy facts interfering with their 'ultruistic for your own good' agenda. Push back middle finger response required.
Post a Comment