Bomber Bradbury and HDCA

The Post reports:

Prominent blogger Martyn Bradbury says he will be appearing in court on Tuesday over posts on his website The Daily Blog, adding that he is “prepared to to go prison for free speech”.

Bradbury – who is widely known as “Bomber” for his bombastic speaking style – wrote on his website that four of his blog posts had been “censored” and he was facing a possible fine or even a prison sentence of six months.

“We can’t tell you who is doing this, we can’t tell why it’s being done, we can’t tell you how it’s being done, and we can’t tell you what has been censored,” he wrote.

“I want everyone involved in this to be made public, because Free Speech issues like this are definitely in the public interest.”

The first I knew of this was when I saw a tweet about this on Sunday. Up until then I had no idea Bradbury had HDCA proceedings against him, who took them, or what they are about.

As details are suppressed, there is a limit to what one can say, but I would make the following general points.

1. The HDCA is well-intentioned but flawed legislation. There have been quite a few cases where it has been used to suppress or prevent legitimate criticism. I have had first hand experience with the HDCA as a content host where a dispute between a reader and a commenter tied me up in months of HDCA proceedings. So I think the HDCA needs to be significantly reformed.
2. People have the right to take an HDCA case, even if they are a critic of the HDCA. Just as I will take my NZ Superannuation at age 65, even though I think it should be means tested. Whether someone is justified in taking a HDCA case is dependent on the facts of the case – basically what was said, were requests made for it to be removed, what was the response etc. As details are supressed it is impossible to know how justified the HDCA case was or is.
3. As a general rule I am against name suppression of parties involved in an HDCA case. Sure there may be a good reasons to suppress the complained about material (as the point of HDCA is to have it removed, not amplified), but the public should know who is using the HDCA against whom. I have sympathy for Bradbury that he seemingly can’t reveal anything at all about the case. There may be a case for suppression of some details, but suppression of everything is rarely justified. Likewise ex parte applications should rarely (if ever) be granted by the Court without hearing from the person complained about. This is again why the HDCA needs reform.
4. If the Court makes a ruling that content is harmful, it is very very unwise to refuse to obey the Court, as that is contempt of court. If the Court makes a bad HDCA ruling, you should appeal it, not ignore it. When I was dragged into an HDCA fight between two people, I always complied promptly with the court orders, even when I strongly disagreed with them. I argued vigorously why I thought an order was too wide and harmful to me. Sometimes I won, sometimes I didn’t. You don’t get to pick and choose once an order is made.