I’ll say it up front. I am no fan of Sean Plunket. You probably already know that. The Broadcasting Standards Authority’s sudden move to claim power over his online platform is dangerous, undemocratic, and reeks of bureaucratic overreach.
The BSA was created in 1989 to regulate television and radio. The internet barely existed. This week, out of nowhere, the BSA told Plunket that it now believes it can regulate The Platform, an online-only talk show. That is not “updating” an old law. That is a state agency quietly rewriting the law to suit itself.
No public debate. No new legislation. Just a handful of officials deciding that they now control online speech. That is the textbook definition of regulatory creep.
If the BSA gets away with this, it will not stop at The Platform. It will come for others next. Independent journalists here on Substack. Political commentators on X. YouTubers and podcasters who criticise the government. Anyone who has an audience and a point of view will suddenly find themselves within reach of a state censor that was never meant to touch the internet.
It is absurd that a small panel of bureaucrats can decide who counts as a “broadcaster” and then apply a law written before broadband existed. It is even worse that they are doing it without Parliament’s consent. If that is not an abuse of power, what is?
If you enjoyed this piece, consider supporting my work by becoming a paid subscriber or, if you’d rather keep it casual, shout me a beer. Every bit helps keep independent writing alive.
The BSA’s role should be to uphold broadcasting standards for traditional media, not to hunt down online opinions it finds uncomfortable. This kind of bureaucratic mission creep erodes public trust and threatens the foundations of free expression in New Zealand.
Whether you like Plunket or not is irrelevant. The issue here is who decides what you can say online. If the BSA succeeds in stretching its authority this far, then every independent voice in this country should be worried. Because once a censor claims power, it never gives it back.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced
No public debate. No new legislation. Just a handful of officials deciding that they now control online speech. That is the textbook definition of regulatory creep.
If the BSA gets away with this, it will not stop at The Platform. It will come for others next. Independent journalists here on Substack. Political commentators on X. YouTubers and podcasters who criticise the government. Anyone who has an audience and a point of view will suddenly find themselves within reach of a state censor that was never meant to touch the internet.
It is absurd that a small panel of bureaucrats can decide who counts as a “broadcaster” and then apply a law written before broadband existed. It is even worse that they are doing it without Parliament’s consent. If that is not an abuse of power, what is?
If you enjoyed this piece, consider supporting my work by becoming a paid subscriber or, if you’d rather keep it casual, shout me a beer. Every bit helps keep independent writing alive.
The BSA’s role should be to uphold broadcasting standards for traditional media, not to hunt down online opinions it finds uncomfortable. This kind of bureaucratic mission creep erodes public trust and threatens the foundations of free expression in New Zealand.
Whether you like Plunket or not is irrelevant. The issue here is who decides what you can say online. If the BSA succeeds in stretching its authority this far, then every independent voice in this country should be worried. Because once a censor claims power, it never gives it back.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced
No comments:
Post a Comment