In a revealing social media post dated February 9, 2026, Free Speech Union council member Ani O'Brien responded to my blog post "The Free Speech Facade: Inviting Steven Pinker and the Hypocritical War on 'Woke' as Strategy for Protecting Powerful White Men." Her response, posted to X (formerly Twitter), demonstrates precisely the rhetorical strategies I critiqued in the original piece: the inversion of victimhood, the deployment of personal grievance to deflect structural analysis, and the mobilization of outrage to obscure complicity in systems that shield powerful men while targeting marginalized communities.
The Response: A Close Reading
O'Brien's post begins with an interesting framing: "Interesting to see that Saviour of Women Professor Mohan Dutta has written (a prompt for ChatGPT) that attacks the Free Speech Union for supposedly propping up misogynists because a guest we hosted showed up in the Epstein Files."
Several rhetorical moves deserve scrutiny here. First, the sarcastic epithet "Saviour of Women Professor" attempts to paint scholarly critique of structural misogyny as self-aggrandizing messiah complex. This is a classic deflection tactic: rather than engaging with the substantive argument about how free speech discourse selectively protects powerful men with problematic associations, O'Brien recasts the critique as individual vanity.
The parenthetical "(a prompt for ChatGPT)" is similarly designed to dismiss the analysis as artificial, inauthentic, or derivative—despite the blog post's grounding in documented facts about Pinker's connections to Jeffrey Epstein and the FSU's pattern of platforming.
Second, O'Brien reduces my argument to "supposedly propping up misogynists because a guest we hosted showed up in the Epstein Files." This is a strawman. My blog post did not argue that the FSU "props up misogynists" simply because Pinker's name appears in Epstein's files. Rather, I argued that the FSU's invitation to Pinker—a figure who provided linguistic analysis that aided Epstein's 2008 plea deal, who flew on Epstein's plane, and who continued to appear at events with Epstein after his conviction—is emblematic of a broader pattern: free speech advocacy that selectively defends elite men while weaponizing the "war on woke" to target marginalized communities, particularly trans people, Indigenous peoples, and ethnic minorities.
The Performance of Victimhood
O'Brien then personalizes the critique: "Strange that he decided to target ME in this screed. I did not publicly front the event nor act as a host or presenter, but of all the board members of the FSU it is me who is the lightning rod for his fury. Why is that do we think?"
This is instructive. My blog post examined O'Brien's role as a FSU council member and prominent voice in New Zealand's "war on woke," particularly her extensive anti-trans advocacy. I included screenshots of her social media posts that frame trans people as threats, mock trans activists, celebrate exclusionary policies, and employ rhetoric that contributes to documented spikes in anti-trans violence. I discussed her alignment with figures like Posie Parker, whose 2023 New Zealand tour coincided with a 42% surge in hate crimes against trans people.
Yet O'Brien recasts this structural critique as being "targeted" personally, as being made a "lightning rod for his fury." The question "Why is that do we think?" implies that the critique is motivated by something other than the substance of her public advocacy—perhaps suggesting gender-based targeting, though she leaves this implicit for her audience to infer.
This is precisely the inversion I described in my original post: the critic becomes the aggressor, the person wielding institutional power becomes the victim, and structural analysis is reframed as personal attack. By centering herself as the injured party, O'Brien deflects from the central argument about patterns of speech protection and whom "free speech" advocacy actually serves.
The Universalization Gambit
O'Brien continues: "In any case, when pretty much all of hollywood and both sides of American politics are implicated in the Epstein Files, his rage could be applied to virtually any organisation who has brought a speaker to NZ at this point."
This is the rhetorical move of false equivalence married to whataboutism. Yes, Epstein's network was extensive. Yes, many powerful figures had associations with him. But this does not absolve specific choices about whom to platform and celebrate. The logic here would suggest that because many people have problematic associations, no one should face scrutiny for platforming anyone. This flattens meaningful distinctions.
Moreover, it misses the point entirely. My critique was not merely that Pinker appears in Epstein files, but that he actively aided Epstein's defense at a crucial juncture—interpreting federal statute in a way that helped secure a lenient plea deal for a serial predator of vulnerable girls. And crucially, that the FSU chose to platform him while simultaneously, through members like O'Brien, running campaigns that frame trans people—one of the most vulnerable populations to violence and discrimination—as predatory threats to children and women.
The hypocrisy is specific: men with documented connections to actual child exploitation networks are given prestigious platforms as defenders of "reason" and "free speech," while trans people advocating for basic healthcare access and recognition are smeared as "groomers" engaged in "child abuse." This asymmetry reveals what the "free speech" crusade actually protects.
The Concluding Insinuation
O'Brien closes with: "I hope Dutta's own hands are clean."
This is a remarkable rhetorical flourish. Without making any specific allegation, O'Brien casts suspicion on the critic. The implication is clear: if you critique men with Epstein associations, you must have something to hide yourself. This is the classic abuser's tactic of DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender). It also echoes the very tactics O'Brien and the FSU deploy against trans people and their advocates—insinuating predatory behavior, invoking child safety as a shield, and mobilizing moral panic.
The irony is acute. I wrote about how free speech advocates shield powerful men connected to actual systems of child exploitation while targeting vulnerable trans communities with rhetoric about protecting children. O'Brien's response: deflect the Epstein connection through universalization, claim personal victimization, and then insinuate that the critic himself might have "unclean hands."
What the Response Reveals
O'Brien's post inadvertently confirms the core argument of my blog post. Rather than engaging with the substantive critique—about selective free speech advocacy, about the "war on woke" as a strategy for protecting elite power while marginalizing the vulnerable, about the hypocrisy of celebrating men adjacent to Epstein while demonizing trans people—she deploys exactly the tactics I described:
- Inversion of victimhood: The powerful FSU council member with a platform claims to be "targeted" by scholarly critique
- Deflection through universalization: Everyone has Epstein connections, so scrutinizing anyone is unreasonable
- Personal grievance over structural analysis: Why me? Why single me out?
- Innuendo and suspicion-casting: "I hope Dutta's own hands are clean"
What O'Brien's response does NOT include:
- Any engagement with Pinker's specific role in aiding Epstein's defense
- Any acknowledgment of the FSU's pattern of platforming anti-trans, anti-Indigenous, and anti-diversity speakers
- Any reflection on her own documented rhetoric that frames trans people as threats
- Any consideration of why "free speech" advocacy consistently defends elite men while targeting marginalized communities
- Any substantive defense of why Pinker was an appropriate choice to platform
The Broader Pattern
O'Brien's response is not unique. It follows a well-worn script employed by those invested in maintaining systems of power while claiming to be defenders of freedom. When confronted with evidence of selective advocacy—of free speech principles applied asymmetrically to protect the powerful and police the margins—the response is never substantive engagement. It is always deflection, personalization, and counter-attack.
This is how structures of oppression maintain themselves: by making structural critique unspeakable, by transforming analysis into "attack," by weaponizing victimhood, and by ensuring that those who point out patterns of complicity are themselves marked as suspicious.
My blog post argued that the FSU's platforming of Steven Pinker exemplifies a culture that protects powerful white men—even those with documented ties to Epstein's network—under the banner of free speech, while simultaneously mobilizing "anti-woke" rhetoric to target trans people, Indigenous peoples, and ethnic minorities as threats to freedom and child safety. This is libertarian hypocrisy: speech that upholds existing hierarchies is protected as sacred inquiry, while speech challenging those hierarchies is vilified as dangerous extremism.
O'Brien's response, by refusing to engage the substance of this critique while deploying deflection and innuendo, enacts the very dynamic I described. It demonstrates that the issue is not my tone, my motivation, or my "cleanliness." The issue is that I named a pattern that benefits specific people and institutions, and those people and institutions prefer that pattern remain unnamed.
Toward Accountability
Genuine free speech advocacy would welcome scrutiny of whom we choose to platform and celebrate. It would ask difficult questions about why certain voices are amplified while others are suppressed. It would examine the differential treatment of elite men with troubling associations versus marginalized communities advocating for recognition and rights.
Instead, what we see from the FSU and its representatives is a defensive crouch: deflect, personalize, attack. This is not the behavior of those confident in their principles. It is the behavior of those protecting power.
The question remains: why is the Free Speech Union so invested in platforming men like Steven Pinker, who aided Jeffrey Epstein's defense, while council members like Ani O'Brien spend their time framing trans people as predatory threats? Why is one form of connection to child harm worthy of a prestigious Auckland event, while another—entirely fabricated—justifies exclusion, ridicule, and policy advocacy that increases violence against vulnerable people?
These questions deserve answers. O'Brien's response provides none. Instead, it provides evidence: evidence that the "war on woke" is indeed a strategy for protecting powerful white men while mobilizing harm against marginalized communities. Evidence that when this pattern is named, those invested in it respond not with reflection but with deflection. Evidence that "free speech" as practiced by the FSU is not a principle but a tool—wielded selectively, strategically, and always in service of power.
I stand by every word of my original analysis. O'Brien's response only strengthens the case.