Kate Hawkesby on Chelsea Manning NZ's visit: You can't cherry pick free speech

COMMENT: In some perverse kind of Groundhog Day, we appear to be as a country again down the rabbit hole of what's free speech.

Hot on the heels of Canadians Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux and then Don Brash rarking everyone up, we now have the impending arrival of Chelsea Manning exercising people.

If you're not up to speed on this (and if you're not politically minded you may well not be) National has leapt up and down over a planned visit of ex-US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning next month.

Chelsea Manning was convicted of espionage and computer fraud after leaking hundreds of thousands of classified American diplomatic and military documents and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

She served seven and had her sentence commuted by Barack Obama as one of his parting shots before leaving office.

She's now on a speaking tour with two events planned for New Zealand - and that's riled former Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse, who says the "convicted felon" should not be allowed to earn money talking about her crimes, and it would "not enhance" New Zealand's relationship with the US.

He says Manning should be banned and not allowed to benefit financially from her crimes.

Only about two weeks ago though, it was the National Party insisting no one be banned - and that free speech be upheld.

So which is it?

Well it depends on your politics. Because likewise the Government, who couldn't shut down far right speakers and white nationalists fast enough, are now also arguing free speech.

The Greens foreign affairs spokeswoman Golriz Ghahraman said Manning doesn't pose a risk for New Zealand. "It's not like she was a drug or sex offender," Ghahraman said.

Well Molyneux, Southern and Brash aren't drug or sex offenders, nor did they pose a risk to New Zealanders, one could argue.

The Free Speech Coalition has said National is on very dodgy ground here – arguing for the rights of one group to speak but not others. But surely the same applies to the Greens?

Isn't this just both sides arguing against what doesn't suit their own political leaning?

I don't see how you can cherry pick it.

Otherwise it's conditional free speech only, based on what we deem fair or not fair, based on our own political viewpoint - which suddenly doesn't sound that free at all.

You either have free speech or you don't.