When the Free Speech Union Discovers the Delete Button: Rights Aotearoa's Position on Speech Rights

Kia ora whānau,

There's a peculiar madness that descends upon Wellington when the self-appointed guardians of free speech discover that words, like boomerangs, have a tendency to return to their source. And oh, what a glorious spectacle it has been watching the Free Speech Union—that bastion of unfettered expression—suddenly develop a passionate interest in historical post deletion and complaints to Netsafe. Thanks, Ani, you turned a bad month into a great long weekend with Lola!

Let me set the scene: Here we have an organisation that would defend your right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre (metaphorically speaking), now clutching their pearls over mean tweets from yesteryear. The irony is so thick you could spread it on toast. However, no one can currently afford butter.

The Great Mea Culpa of 2024

Yes, our CEO was perhaps too combative online before July 2024. There, we said it. Mea culpa delivered, lessons learned, moving forward. But here's what separates us from the pearl-clutchers: we never dragged anyone's whānau, partners, or physical appearance into our rhetorical battles. That's a line we don't cross, even when provoked by what can only be described as a coterie of individuals obsessed with other people's fabulousness.

When you make yourself a political figure, like Ani has done—when you position yourself as the self-appointed high priestess of a particular brand of prejudice—you enter the arena of public discourse. And in that arena, criticism isn't harassment; it's democracy in action. As Kelvin Morgan posted in response to our post earlier today when you enter the town square, you hold yourself to a higher standard. That is why to date, our CEO has only taken two HDCA orders, both when family was bought into it.

Rights Aotearoa's Position: Free Speech with Footnotes

So let's be crystal clear about where Rights Aotearoa stands on speech rights. We believe in free speech—genuinely, passionately, and without the selective application that seems to plague certain unions. But we also believe in something revolutionary: responsibility.

Our position recognises four essential carve-outs from absolute free speech:

1. Incitement in the Age of Algorithms

The old model of incitement—where someone literally stands on a soapbox calling for immediate violence—is quaint in the digital age. We need to recognise stochastic terrorism for what it is: using public platforms to inspire random acts of violence through carefully crafted dog whistles and plausible deniability.

When prominent figures send ominous letters to healthcare providers, creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, that's not free speech—it's stochastic domestic terrorism with a legal letterhead. Sue us if you disagree. We'll see you in court.

If people wants to pursue our CEO's assets, I hope their legal French is exceptionally good, and they can wait 17 years, cos French justice is slow! I recommend Madame Dupong, avocat à la cour à Luxembourg.

2. Defamation: The Great Equaliser

Here's where things get interesting. We actually agree with FSU Chairman Stephen Franks on defamation law. (Mark your calendars, folks—this may never happen again.) Defamation is essential to free speech because it provides recourse when speech becomes weaponised lies.

Where we part ways is on the justification. Franks clings to the "marketplace of ideas" theory like it's 1859 and John Stuart Mill just dropped a hot new album. Someone needs to gift the FSU a copy of Roy Sorensen's work on thought experiments, because the marketplace metaphor assumes rational actors and perfect information—two things notably absent from modern discourse.

We support strengthening defamation penalties because accountability matters. If you're going to claim someone is destroying society, you'd better have the receipts - oh Ani, did you keep the receipts from last Sunday?

3. Hate Speech: Beyond Hurt Feelings

Hate speech isn't about protecting people from offence—it's about preventing the dehumanisation that precedes violence. When speech systematically targets groups for their immutable characteristics, creating an environment where violence becomes thinkable, then speakable, then doable—that's where we draw the line. Our position here is well known.

4. Online Hate: A Different Beast

The digital realm requires its own framework. Online hate operates differently from real-world hate—it's persistent, searchable, shareable, and scalable. A hateful comment in a pub dissipates; a hateful post lives forever, accumulating views and inspiring copycats.

We need different approaches and timelines for addressing online hate because the harm mechanisms are fundamentally different. This isn't censorship; it's recognition that technology changes how speech operates.

5. Professional Codes: The Forgotten Frontier

Here's one that makes free speech absolutists squirm: professional guilds can and must regulate speech within their own ranks. Doctors, lawyers, teachers—they all operate under codes that restrict certain forms of expression. Why? Because with professional power comes professional responsibility. Someone, should ask Nick Hanne of the FSU who can't teach anymore because is a a transphobic bigot.

You can't claim medical authority while spreading health misinformation. You can't practice law while undermining the justice system. These aren't restrictions on free speech; they're the price of admission to positions of public trust.

If you want to shout the 'T' slur on Lambton Quay or on an anonymous X account that you run specifically to avoid professional accountability, and you are—say, a senior anaesthetist - well, you can't - not if you want to keep your job. You gave up that right when you freely entered into an agreement with the guild to get economic benefits and the social prestige of the profession.

The Bottom Line

Here's the thing: we at Rights Aotearoa believe in free speech. Real free speech. Not the selective, self-serving version peddled by those who want freedom without responsibility. We believe you should be able to say almost anything—and face the consequences when that speech causes real, tangible harm.

So yes, criticise us. Challenge our positions. Question our methods. That's democracy. But don't hide behind the banner of free speech while simultaneously trying to silence your critics through complaints and legal threats. That's not principled—it's pathetic. And don't attack people's disabilities anonomously when you are a—checks notes—a disability researcher, yes that's aimed at you, Dr Carol Hamilton. You have my email for the defamation proceedings. But don't forget that would open you up to civil discovery....

And to those who find themselves featured in our commentary: if you don't like being called out for your public positions, perhaps reconsider having public positions. Or better yet, have better positions.

Ngā mihi nui,

Paul Thistoll
CEO, Rights Aotearoa

P.S. For those keeping score at home: Yes, this entire piece is an exercise in free speech about free speech. Meta enough for you?