Skip to main content

The Free Speech Union NZ: Champions of Liberty, Selectively Applied

 


The Free Speech Union NZ: Champions of Liberty, Selectively Applied

Ah, the Free Speech Union. That noble band of warriors waving the banner of unrestricted expression, right up until the expression in question points out inconvenient facts about power, empire, or the people they would prefer not to hear from. In the Aotearoa New Zealand franchise of this global operation, free speech is less a principle than a carefully curated club membership. Some voices get the velvet rope, the podcast slot, and the national tour. Others get the quiet word to the employer, the complaint form, and a coordinated pile-on served on the side.

The pattern is elegant in its consistency. Platform and amplify the preferred repertoire: Islamophobia, white-grievance cosplay, anti-trans panic, the full imported culture-war catalogue. Polish it, exaggerate it, and present it as brave truth-telling under siege from an imaginary woke inquisition. Simultaneously, deploy the mute button, the complaint mechanism, and the employment pressure against speech from the margins, especially speech that advocates justice, critiques settler colonialism, or notices an ongoing genocide. Free speech for me, consequences for thee. It is not hypocrisy; it is infrastructure.

This is what the culture-centered approach names communicative inversion: the strategic deployment of a value's vocabulary to produce its opposite. The material practice of silencing is dressed in the language of liberty. The powerful narrate themselves as the persecuted. The censor arrives holding a placard that reads "censorship is bad." The inversion is the product. It is what the organisation manufactures, and it is what the donors are paying for.

On this very blogsite, I have documented the technique before. Zionist and white-supremacist currents flowing through the same organisational channels produce predictable results, and council members Dane Giraud and David Cumin have demonstrated the method with textbook clarity. 

Speech critical of Israeli settler colonialism and the slaughter in Gaza is treated as a firing offence in waiting rather than as protected expression. Giraud tags the employer, asking a university whether it is happy employing one of its academics. Cumin's Israel Institute tags the employer, and the employers of other academics for good measure. 

Then come the misinformation-laced hit pieces that function less as argument and more as targeting packets. The racist hate attacks follow on schedule. Pure coincidence, of course. The Union is merely concerned about civility.

And now the saga delivers its most exquisite chapter yet, one so perfectly formed that satire can only stand back and applaud. Ani O'Brien, a member of the Free Speech Union's own governing council and a host of its national "Good Faith Yarns" tour, has been revealed as the complainant who took blogger Martyn Bradbury of The Daily Blog, the country's largest independent left-wing media site, to court under the Harmful Digital Communications Act. 

Yes, that Harmful Digital Communications Act. The same statute the Union has spent years denouncing as a censor's charter, a law it warned could be "weaponised" to silence lawful expression. It turns out the warning was less a critique than a user manual.

Consider the receipts, because they are glorious. A judge granted O'Brien's application to have four blog posts taken down on an interim basis. She sought a court-ordered public apology as well, which was declined, presumably because compelled speech remains a bridge too far even for the free-speech aristocracy. Bradbury, operating under suppression orders, observed that he was now legally censored from even talking about being censored, and declared himself prepared to go to jail rather than apologise. The complainant, meanwhile, enjoyed the protection of name suppression while pursuing the case, and lifted it only when the swirl of speculation began, in her words to the court, causing more harm than good to an organisation whose board she sits on. Read that again. The concern that finally outweighed her privacy was not the principle of open justice. It was the brand.

The Union's response completes the picture. Faced with one of its own council members litigating speech out of existence under the very statute it campaigns against, the organisation condemned her actions and announced it had known nothing about the case until the media reported it. This is the tell of astroturf everywhere: when the contradiction becomes public, the principle is instantly disposable and the brand is not. An actual free-speech organisation would have a crisis of conscience. A speech-management operation has a crisis of communications.

Because that is what this is: a speech-management project wearing a free-speech costume. It belongs to a broader global far-right architecture, funded and franchised, that understands with perfect precision the difference between speech that reinforces hierarchy and speech that challenges it. The first is liberty, courage, the lifeblood of democracy. The second is "hate," "misinformation," "harassment," "ridicule," or simply, as the lawyers now put it, a harmful digital communication. The name Free Speech Union is the joke. The selective application of principle is the punchline. And the target, always, is the democratic infrastructure that lets the margins speak back: the independent left media site, the critical academic, the activist who names the genocide.

In the end the Free Speech Union NZ performs a genuine public service. It demonstrates, in real time and with court documents for receipts, that for the far right "free speech" has always meant the freedom to dominate the conversation while erasing everyone else, and that when the erasure requires a takedown order, they know exactly which statute to reach for. The satire writes itself. The subjects keep filing the material.

Popular posts from this blog

The Haka, the Hurt, and the Work We Owe

  The Haka, the Hurt, and the Work We Owe An Indian in Aotearoa reflects on resistance, complicity, and the solidarities we have yet to build Mohan Jyoti Dutta I watched the haka. I watched it several times, in fact. Each time, I tried to sit with what I was feeling before reaching for what I was supposed to think. Let me be honest about who I am in this conversation, because that matters. I am an upper caste, upwardly mobile Indian man. I am a professor at a university in Aotearoa. I carry the accumulated privileges of Brahminical socialisation, of English-medium education, of institutional access that was never designed for the communities I now write about and alongside. I say this not as confession but as orientation — because where you stand shapes what you see, and I have learned, through years of working with communities at the margins, that the refusal to name your own location is itself a colonial habit. The haka directed at Parmjeet Parmar did not offend me. It ...
Read more

Whiteness, NCA, and Distinguished Scholars

In a post made in response to the changes to how my discipline operates made by the Executive Committee of the largest organization of the discipline, the National Communication Association (NCA), one of the editors of a disciplinary journal Rhetoric and Public Affairs (RPA), Professor Martin J. Medhurst, a Distinguished Scholar of the discipline, calls out what he sees as the threat of identity (see below for his full piece published in the journal that he has edited for 20+ years, with 2019 SJR score of 0.27). In what he notes is a threat to the "scholarly merit" of the discipline, Professor Medhurst sets up a caricature of what he calls "identity." In his rhetorical construction of the struggles the NCA has faced over the years to find Distinguished Scholars of colour, he shares with us the facts. So let's look at the facts presented by this rhetor. It turns out, as a member of the Distinguished Scholar community of the NCA, Mr. Medhurst has problems with w...
Read more

The Substack and the Slur: How a Manufactured Crisis Toppled a Wahine Māori Political Editor

  The Substack and the Slur: How a Manufactured Crisis Toppled a Wahine Māori Political Editor On the architecture of the Aotearoa culture-war machine, and the danger it poses to a democracy heading into 2026 There is a particular cadence to the afternoon on which the career of a senior Māori journalist  at TVNZ is finished. It is unhurried. It begins with a tweet — in this case, a single image of a typed statement, posted by Maiki Sherman, the now-former political editor of TVNZ, on the afternoon of Friday, 8 May 2026, announcing that she had parted ways with the broadcaster. The post was terse, dignified, and final. As RNZ later reported , Sherman wrote that the scrutiny of the previous week had placed enormous pressure on her and rendered her role "untenable." The first wahine Māori to lead a major broadcaster's political team was gone. The story that finished her had not, ten days earlier, existed in any newspaper, on any wire, on any website you would consider mai...
Read more