Free Speech, but Not for Thee
Let’s be clear. Auckland Council doesn’t own council venues. Ratepayers own them. Auckland Council can’t stop people using them without good reason. And having opposing ideological views isn’t one of them.
Let’s be clear. Auckland Council doesn’t own council venues. Ratepayers own them. Auckland Council can’t stop people using them without good reason. And having opposing ideological views isn’t one of them.
We need a state confident enough to say that no mosque, church, temple, synagogue, prophet, scripture, imam, pastor or ideology is above criticism. Not one.
If we take everything that is said too seriously, we are in danger of completely losing our sense of humour.
The Karen Class destroys a good man, just for speaking plainly.
I’m saying it without my name attached, in a publication built specifically to defend my right to say it with my name attached. If that strikes you as a contradiction, it should.
To win on free speech is to win. And the wokesters know it.
From making the population stupid to replacing the natives and then acting surprised when it explodes in your face.
PILLAR will now begin engaging with members of parliament, legal experts and civil society organisations with the goal of introducing the proposal to parliament. Nathan Seiuli says the choice facing New Zealand is bigger than social media.
Most people know how I voted at the last election. I gave my party vote to ACT and my electorate vote to National. Unless something changes dramatically between now and polling day, I can’t see myself doing that again.
Smuggling in a regime of pre-emptive speech control. The right response is therefore the simplest one. Support the deepfake amendment for exactly what it is – a narrow, sound, self-contained closing of a gap in the law – and refuse, flatly, to let the commission’s wider regime ride in on its back.
Hamit Coskun fled a fundamentalist Islamic regime – and landed in an even more fundamentalist Islamic regime
The proposal is, at its core, an attempt to answer a question that sounds simple but is not: what should professional regulation actually be for? Personal beliefs should be of no interest to the regulators.