September 10, 2023
There's a lot to be said about free speech as an important cornerstone of a free and fair society. But does that mean that all speech is protected? Well, no. Some speech can incite harm on our community. Find out why conspiracy theorists are using this topic as a policy platform.
We are being silenced by sinister forces linked to a globalist conspiracy. Voting for conspiracy-orientated minor parties in the general election is the only way you can stop them from introducing tyrannical restrictions on free speech.
Democratic societies can choose to impose limits on certain types of speech, such as death threats or incitement to racial violence. In New Zealand the parliamentary and legal system has safeguards in place to help ensure legislation and regulation reflect our values, is procedurally fair and is subject to appropriate oversight.
The current government has not imposed new laws to restrict speech. Proposals to extend existing hate speech laws were delayed by the response to the pandemic, then watered down, and then shelved until after the 2023 election.
The Department of Internal Affairs is currently consulting on proposals to regulate social media and traditional media platforms. The decision whether or not to introduce such regulation and its form will be made by parliament through normal democratic processes and community consultation, not imposed by a conspiracy of ‘globalists’
New Zealanders are free to speak to the public about any issue unless that speech is illegal (for example, defamatory, or an “objectionable publication”). Conspiracy groups and anti-vaccination advocates are not “being silenced”. They have been free to publish and say what they want (within the law) and have done so on numerous online platforms and in real life. Recently, they have formed political parties to promote their ideas during the 2023 general election campaign.
The right to free speech does not imply that there is an obligation to offer a platform to everyone who wants one or that speech must be consequence-free. There are legitimate considerations of interest, accuracy and potential for harm.
Conspiracy theory and anti-vaccination misinformation-aligned parties contesting the 2023 general election claim to be “defending free speech”. This is, at least in part, a dog-whistle. A “dog-whistle” message uses language that appears normal to the majority – after all who doesn’t like free speech? – but communicates specific things to intended audiences. In this case those audiences are anti-vaccination misinformation believers and those who believe in COVID-19 and New World Order (NWO) conspiracy theories.
Anti-vaccination beliefs are rooted in a conspiracy theory about “Big Pharma” and governments hiding the truth about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. COVID-19 conspiracy theories claim that truths about COVID-19, its origins, potential cures etc have been covered up. NWO conspiracy theorists argue that a hidden “globalist” elite wants to introduce a tyrannical one-world government. They all share the idea that powerful groups are working behind the scenes to stop ‘truthseekers’ from revealing “what is really going on” to an unsuspecting public. To do this the conspirators must use their influence over national governments, the media and tech companies to restrict people’s ability to share information and ideas. (See why conspiracy theorist minor parties’ policies are targeting imaginary globalists plots)
According to New Zealand’s conspiracy theorist community, this is what lies behind the proposed laws against hate speech and recent proposals for regulation of online platforms. It also explains why they got kicked off social media platforms (when they were spreading COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation) and complaints about the mainstream media. It’s all been deliberate suppression by nefarious actors linked to a New World Order conspiracy. As a result, activists are currently holding public screenings of a film they made to complain about being “Silenced” and this theme has been taken up by all the conspiracist parties in the general election.
However, this will come as a surprise to many. Almost everyone has encountered someone in their community, in real life or online, who is happy to share misinformation about COVID-19 or the vaccine, often with a conspiracy theory chaser to explain why ‘They’ aren’t telling you the truth. So any NWO conspiracy to silence its critics hasn’t been very effective.
During the last two years NZs largest conspiracist group Voices for Freedom claims to have delivered millions of leaflets packed with inaccurate information about COVID, masking and vaccines to households throughout the country. They have also been able to run expensive billboard campaigns to promote their views. But were they censored?
Not really. One company took a few billboards down after it found that VFF activists had harassed people waiting to get vaccinated, but they were able to find other companies happy to take their money. In response to complaints from the public, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) did ask VFF to take down three anti-vaccine adverts and they were eventually told to stop distributing some of their leaflets. But this was because they were found to be misleading or not sufficiently substantiated, even by the relatively lenient standards the ASA applies to advocacy material. In fact the ASA is an industry body, not a government one, and its rulings don’t have the force of law, so VFF chose to comply. VFF’s campaign continued largely unaffected. Not exactly “silenced.”
Social media platforms have terms of service which allow them to label, remove or limit posts and comments and close down accounts. This has meant that some of New Zealand’s key vaccine or COVID-19 misinformation promoters have seen their accounts closed down. However this hasn’t done much to curb their ability to speak to their followers as they have moved to unmoderated platforms such as Telegram. They have set up their own online media outlets (such as Counterspin, Operation People and Reality Check Radio etc) which they claim reach huge audiences.
Conspiracists have been free to form advocacy groups, which they claim have over 100,000 members, to organise meetings, protests and coordinated campaigns to swamp online comments sections. They’ve also been free to promote their views during local and national election campaigns. In 2020 AdvanceNZ, Outdoors and Vision received 4% of the money allocated to parties for broadcast advertising. This year conspiracist parties have been allocated around $400,000. (see the Election Commission’s broadcasting allocation decision).
Some doctors were registered or censured by the New Zealand Medical Council. The NZMC upholds professional standards and when doctors break those standards by spreading misinformation they took steps. Doctors can’t say absolutely anything they want and still stay registered.
During the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic quarantine and movement measures designed to contain the spread of the virus meant some kinds of gatherings, including protests, couldn’t take place. These measures have been judged to be proportionate and reasonable in court when figures such as Brian Tamaki defended themselves on the grounds of free speech and a right to protest (see why conspiracy theorists are obsessed with the bill of rights act). This in term stems from restrictions being limited in scope and in time (and indeed they have all been rolled back).
Conspiracist groups also complain bitterly about exclusion from the mainstream media. But not every opinion or random thought is going to be published. Difficult though it may be for some to accept, some ideas are not worthy of publication. Some lack coherence, some are based on misinformation, some are potentially harmful and some are simply not interesting. Similarly, owners of a venue or advertising hoarding may prefer to not be associated with a group, because they may genuinely dislike their content or have concerns that others will. These are reasonable considerations and do not equate to “censorship”
It is much easier to claim suppression than to ensure the content being shared is relevant, coherent, accurate and does not cause harm. Free Speech legislation cannot have an impact on the two main problems for disinformation purveyors. It will not force platforms and venues to host them, and will not suppress the open expressions of disagreement or disdain that upsets them so much.
When the freedom movement says “we want free speech” what they mean is “we demand the ability to say what we want on the platform of our choosing without any consequence” which is both unappealing and unreasonable.
A con artist would not be given a column giving financial advice in a national paper or speaking rights at a debate on economic policy. Similarly, anti-vaccination advocates and conspiracy theorists cannot expect their demand for space to be granted.
The claim ‘’we’re being silenced’ is designed to give the impression that groups who promote conspiracy theories possess valuable, yet stigmatised knowledge – the truth that ‘They’ don’t want you to hear. This is a strategy to dignify bullshit by associating it with a noble cause. The intent is to reassure their supporters that the reason hardly anyone agrees with them is not because their opinions are wrong, ridiculous or boring but because they are so dangerous to ‘Them’ that they must be suppressed. Sometimes this takes the form of the Galileo gambit, a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to supposedly vilify or threaten you, then you must be right.
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
― Carl Sagan, Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science
Anti-vaccination advocates and conspiracy theorists know their views are unpopular so they strategically lie about their intentions. For example, Voices for Freedom, which was set up by anti-vaccination advocates and campaigned to stop people from being able to access COVID-19 vaccines claims it’s not anti-vaccine but merely pro-medical freedom. This is a strategy to persuade people who would not join an anti-vaccination group to support them.
The claim to be in favour of “freedom of speech” serves the same purpose. It is used as a “motte and bailey” argument where someone advances a controversial position, but when challenged, insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. It sounds more reasonable to say “We just want the right to be heard” than “We want the right to spread anti-vaccination taking points and conspiracy theories, on the platform of our choice”. The end result is that conspiracy theorists are able to broaden their appeal to attract people whose main concern is “defending free speech”. (See the Motte and Bailey Fallacy)
There is an element of hypocrisy in the freedom movement’s argument that it is being silenced. Although key players complain bitterly about being banned from some social media platforms they are not above preventing their critics from commenting on the platforms they control. But the biggest threat to free speech posed by the so-called freedom movement has been the deliberate use of intimidation, violent rhetoric and death threats to intimidate people.
The problem remains that access to traditional and online media is uneven. People and groups with money and prestige have easier access, but (for example) members of minorities struggle to get their point of view represented. This is a genuine problem. We should not mix up the issue of media bias when deciding which point of view is worthy of coverage with the deliberate suppression that conspiracists claim.
The differences between New Zealand’s elections and the United States are vast. Some people in New Zealand are recycling America’s false “stolen election” conspiracy theories here when it just doesn’t make sense.
Co-governance between Māori and the Crown has a long history in this country. So why has it been turned into an election issue for conspiracy theorist parties and an apocalyptic vision by an end-times preacher?
All of the policies demanded by parties seeking the “freedom movement” vote are already government policy, except stopping the vaccine rollout. So why are they calling for that and why do they want an “independent inquiry”?