Portia is a Kiwi journalist who has worked on some of NZ’s most challenging investigative news stories. Portia and her family enthusiastically embraced the many freedoms of a democratic society when they emigrated here from China over two decades ago. …
The complainant, a man running in local body elections in Howick, East Auckland (and someone Portia had investigated back in 2019) had been repeatedly attacking Portia on a Chinese chat forum for her involvement in the Stuff documentary.
For a time, she ignored the man’s many derogatory articles and posts about her. But when he accused the NZ Government of being a “lackey to the United States”, Portia decided she’d had enough and retorted that in fact it was he who was being a “lackey” for the CCP.
The literal translation of the specific Chinese insult they both used for each other is “running dog”, or someone blindly loyal who does another’s bidding.
According to the complainant in his affidavit to the Court, receiving this label in a chat forum had caused him “serious emotional distress”. He requested the Court defend his honour, citing the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA).
Portia was, therefore, barred under the HDCA from engaging in criticism of the complainant. This ban also extends to Portia encouraging anyone else to criticise the man. Violation of the order will result in a fine of anything between $5,000 and $20,000. Yes, this is happening in New Zealand, not China.
You’re probably wondering what Portia said in her defence? Surely no NZ judge would take the complainant’s claims seriously?
Think again.
Not only did the judge decide in favour of the complainant, but Portia wasn’t even able to give a defence.
Why?
Because Portia was never notified by the Court about the case in the first place!
This is why I had misgivings about the HDCA. We did need a law to protect people against online harm, but it should be for serious cases of abuse – not a trivial insult (in response to her being insulted). It is bad enough an order was made, but worse that it was made without notification and even worse to prevent a journalist from criticising a candidate for political office.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.
2 comments:
This is Orwell's "1984" in action.
Defining "hate speech" along the lines of Comrade Ardern's famous definition:- "You will know it when you see it."
Seriously, am I alone in beginning to wonder what the heck some of our judges have between their ears?
Post a Comment