Government proposes censorship regime for blogs

Jonathan Ayling of the Free speech Union writes:

The Department of Internal Affairs’ public consultation documentproposes 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.

Kiwiblog would come under this new regime. I currently voluntarily subscribe to the NZ Media Council Code of Ethics, but that is my decision. This proposed regime would make it compulsory for Kiwiblog to regulated by a regulator.

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.

Illegal contact is already dealt with and is illegal. This regime is about regulating legal speech.

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.

I assume the FSU will set up a submission tool which will make it easy for people to submit on these proposals. When they do, I will encourage readers to take the time to submit.