Phil Goff: Censorship law no threat to freedom of speech

Phil Goff

Opinion

Stephen Franks' claim that anti-child porn legislation passed last month threatens the freedom of speech of all New Zealanders is complete rubbish.

The Films, Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Act is largely focused on toughening up child porn laws. However, it also allows age restrictions to be placed on specific material to prevent harm to children or young people.

This material includes portrayals of suicide, bodily mutilations and self-harm, dangerous imitable behaviour such as extreme reckless physical conduct or consumption of drugs and alcohol, or visual portrayals that are degrading, dehumanising or demeaning.

This does not allow censors to age-restrict ideas or opinions that they think would be degrading to some groups in our society; it applies only to images.

The act also allows age restrictions to be placed on publications solely because they contain offensive language. To qualify, the language must be highly offensive to the public in general, to an extent that if not age-restricted in some way, the availability of the publication would likely cause serious harm to people under that age. The maximum age restriction is 18.

These are not new concepts. New Zealand has long had rules - such as R18 restrictions on movies - to protect children and young people from seeing images that could cause them harm because of their vulnerability.

Somehow, Franks believes these changes mean that censors can now ban a video that shows homosexuality and says it is abnormal, on the grounds that a school student who thinks he is gay might feel demeaned or degraded. This is nonsense.

Far from being any attempt to limit free speech, it is simply a measure to protect children from exposure to otherwise unclassifiable extreme offensive language.

The provision is concerned solely with protecting children, and does not authorise restriction simply because adults find an expression or language offensive or insulting to a particular group in society.

Franks' claim that censors can bypass "gateway" provisions in the act that protect free speech is also nonsense. He is simply wrong in his claim that this restricts hate speech.

In drafting the legislation, the Government deliberately decided that it would not cover hate speech. In that regard, the Herald's front-page article last Friday was inaccurate in suggesting that the Government is considering hate speech legislation.

The Government Administration Select Committee, which consists of members from both sides of the House, made a bipartisan decision independent of the Government to hold an inquiry into hate speech, as it is fully entitled to do.

I personally deplore hate speech, whether it be based on a person's race, sexual orientation or religion.

However, freedom of expression is protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and is fundamental to democracy.

I believe that a free society should not censor people from expressing opinions, no matter how much we might reject those views.

It is neither appropriate nor practical to use legislation to try to alter opinions or prevent their being expressed.

New Zealand, like all free societies, already places restrictions on speech that incites acts of violence against people. This is different from expressing opinion.

Freedom of speech is the right of every New Zealander.

This Government has not, and will not, erode that right, no matter how much conspiracy theorists such as Franks might like to tell you so.

* Phil Goff is Minister of Justice.