Free Speech and the Need for a Political Center
Free Speech and the Need for a Political Center
Free speech should not be monopolized or criminalized by misunderstood political narratives. Below what I think about Free Speech and how it relates to the need for the Political Center
Remember when the Left was a staunch advocate for free speech in the 1960s and 1970s? Today, that mantle seems to have shifted to the Right. This shift is noteworthy because it highlights how no group or political side should or can monopolise the paramount idea of free speech.
Everyone should fight for free speech at all costs, but in a way that doesn't alienate others while still using it to hold people, organizations, and governments accountable. Free speech does a lot of complex political and social heavy lifting critical to everyone’s well-being.
This article isn't meant to be easy or comfortable—it's a challenge for you as the reader and me as the writer. By its very nature, free speech should challenge us, regardless of whether we belong to the in-group or the out-group. In good faith, I offer these reflections based on my personal experience as a Latina immigrant living in New Zealand who also holds great privilege while walking a fine line between advocacy, change, practicality, moderation, and stability.
There is a poll at the end of the artcile, please click befre you leave the artcile. Regardles of whether you finish the article or not.
The Tight Rope
When considering the issue of hate speech, one of the challenges is reconciling the need to protect and promote the right to freedom of opinion and expression on the one hand and to combat intolerance, discrimination, and incitement to hatred on the other.1
Freedom of speech, like most human rights, is not absolute and it is subject to certain restrictions or limitations under international and national law.
Professor Nicole Moreham's remarks at the Te Herenga Waka Free Speech debate in early 2024 resonate with me deeply. She said, “I'm a centrist, so I fear that means I am going to annoy everyone.” She went on to explain that the free speech debate has often been reduced to a binary struggle between the Left and Right, leaving those who don't fully align with either side out of the conversation.
Professor Moreham stated that “when criticism of the Right is immediately labelled "woke", and critiques from the Left are met with overzealous attempts to prevent harm, moderate voices are silenced and sidelined.” This dangerous self-censorship creates a vacuum where only extreme positions thrive, a scenario that isn’t working, with many examples of this, most recently illustrated with the recent UK riots.
We desperately need moderate voices to help navigate the complex terrain where values like inclusion, fairness, diversity, and unity often conflict. More personally, I question whether we have the necessary shared values to coexist within this new polarized, hyper-diverse society, where there must be space for diversity but also for groups to gather based on homogenous traits like religion, language, and culture. Our social cohesion is under great threat, and the lack of moderate voices is exacerbating the risks.
Before I talk about freedom of speech, one clarification
Being Left or Right isn’t equivalent to caring versus not caring. The Left doesn't have a monopoly on kindness, generosity, or concern for climate change. Many who vote for the Right care deeply about these issues—the difference lies in who each side thinks is best placed to solve the problems, and these views can shift and adapt depending on many factors.
Currently, the Right is unfairly associated with immorality, selfishness, and wealth, and that over-simplification is ignorant, unhelpful, and needs to be challenged. It’s problematic and limits our political options for solving the gnarly issues we face.
The Center questions whether the government is best placed to solve hard issues like climate change and child poverty, while still wanting to advocate for hard issues like climate change and child poverty. The Center also recognizes that political views, priorities and outcomes are a mix bag from left wing and right wing ideas.
For example, James Shaw fought to solve climate change inside the government (left-wing approach), and now he has moved to Morrison, part of the private sector (right-wing approach), to fight the same issue because there is an argument that the private sector can solve issues better than the government can. Does that mean James Shaw doesn’t care about climate change? I think we can all agree that it doesn’t.
The government has demonstrated for years that it has failed to address countless issues, such as the housing crisis, which private developers might be better placed to solve faster. Or chronic problems in state care, recently shown by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into State Care. NGOs in New Zealand do incredible work tackling social issues, which are usually better than the government's, and don’t get nearly the support or recognition they deserve. For example, consider what organizations like KidsCan are doing for children if they get 1/10 of the funding MSD gets.
I explain this because free speech should not be seen as exclusively Right or Left or as the same as advocating for racism or any form of discrimination, which I categorically reject and fight against every day.
Kōrero Whakamauāhara: Hate Speech Legal Framework
While thinking and talking about free speech in New Zealand, it's essential to remember that it's already illegal "to publish or distribute threatening, abusive, or insulting words likely to ‘excite hostility against’ or ‘bring into contempt’ any group on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins.”
This legal framework is an essential backdrop to our discussions about the boundaries and responsibilities that come with free speech.
Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission of Aotearoa has a great document called Kōrero Whakamauāhara: Hate Speech Overview of the legal framework that I encourage you to look at.
The general consensus is that the government should not regulate speech but should be closely monitored by independent bodies like Te Mana Whakaatu | Classifications Office, Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho | The Broadcasting Standards Authority, Te kaunihera ao pāpāho o Aotearoa | New Zealand Media Council and the Advertising Standards Authority.
Government regulation of speech is often unhelpful and problematic and can have unintended negative consequences, like turning laws against the marginalized groups they were meant to protect. My experience working and studying social cohesion policies has repeatedly underscored the concern that censoring speech will harm minorities because it can and most likely will be used against them.
The Eggshells of Privilege and Sharing the Megaphone
If you are from a group that feels as though you must now walk on eggshells when speaking, consider this: you are experiencing a fraction of what minority groups have endured for centuries globally. So, thinking you can’t say anything without consequences is not bad. The lack of institutional validation and the constant need to self-police are realities that have long defined the lives of those outside the in-group. So the fact that now the privileged group feels this pressure to self-police means that, finally, the scales are beginning to balance, and the megaphone is being shared more fairly. You can't say anything without consequences anymore, but suppressing speech entirely or perpetuating the idea of cancelling people will cause worse issues without solving the problems.
But this doesn’t mean we must accept the binary, zero-sum environment that has taken root. It’s possible to agree with someone on one issue and disagree with the same person on another without perpetuating cancel culture, identity, or cultural politics. The latter, I fear, is driving us further apart rather than fostering understanding, tolerance, unity and fairness.
The Role of Speech in Society
Anjum Rahman, founder of Tāhono | Inclusive Aotearoa Collective stated with much eloquence that
Speech expresses thoughts and ideas that should challenge our thinking and assumptions, opening us to new ways of doing things and connecting with each other.
Speech can also be a weapon to silence, promote harm, incite violence, defame and harm reputations, and create an atmosphere that makes it acceptable to discriminate against groups of people, excluding them from employment, housing, adequate health care, and even education.
The rise of social media has dramatically increased the spread of harmful speech, leading to real-world consequences like the Myanmar genocide and the Christchurch attacks. Group defamation targets specific communities and has far-reaching impacts beyond individual offences. Therefore, universities are responsible for protecting these groups while ensuring safe spaces for free expression and robust debate. The challenge lies in balancing these needs without stifling important conversations.
“We should feel uncomfortable with this debate but never unsafe.”
Anjum Rahman
Universities have long been bastions of challenging ideas, but they have also historically marginalized minority groups through certain research practices and institutional behaviours. I commend Te Herenga Waka for pushing through the complexities of putting this debate together. It says much about leadership wanting to open space for competing viewpoints on such a sensitive issue.
As someone deeply committed to advocating for minority groups—being part of one myself—I believe in addressing systemic oppression from within our existing institutions. The goal is to confront and target the game, not the players.
Where is this now, in 2024?
In 2022, when the Ministry of Justice consulted on hate speech laws, it received over 17,000 submissions against them, primarily from the Free Speech Union. This overwhelming response forced Minister Chris Faafoi to reconsider the legislation.
Currently, “Te Aka Matua o te Ture | Law Commission has been asked to review the law relating to hate crime. The review will focus on whether the law should be changed to create standalone hate crime offences as recommended in recommendation 39 of the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019.
This project will not consider the law relating to hate speech. A review of hate speech was on the Law Commission’s work programme but has been withdrawn by Hon Paul Goldsmith, the National Minister Responsible for the Law Commission.
The Law Commission is undertaking preliminary research for this project and will publish Terms of Reference once they are confirmed.”
Finally
I hope this helped. As I said, writing this article was uncomfortable, but I hope my intention to do this in good faith came through. If it didn’t, let me know. I’m always open to hearing about any blind spots, assumptions, or conclusions I am coming to that could be harmful to groups.
Hi Nat. I’m a subscriber, although I do not share your politics. I like your freshness and willingness to declare your position in a clean way.
This article though was woolly.