Public Relations Institute of New Zealand
22 May 2008
PRINZ Conference Opens With Free Speech Challenge
This morning Matthew Horton of Horton Media opened the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand conference with a
controversial challenge to the popular concept of free speech.
He said that the court system, defamation laws, and the Electoral Finance Act have combined to suppress freedom of
information in New Zealand – and that contrary to popular belief, the digital media will not be the saviour of free
speech.
He said that the justice system has increasingly suppressed defendants’ names and details of their crimes, often without
good reason, thus denying the public their right to know.
Mr Horton said that the next most common tool used to undermine New Zealander’s freedom of expression is the defamation
law, which has “perverted one of the fundamental principles of law so that defendants aren’t entitled to the presumption
of innocence.”
“The result is that the media’s chances of beating even plainly dishonest plaintiffs are uneven at best. There have been
more than a few cases where the media has lost a defamation action at great cost only for the plaintiff to later be
convicted of the same transgression.”
A more insidious method of intimidation, he says, is cultural sensitivity, often relating to statements about Maori and
Polynesian issues.
And perhaps the saddest thing, he said, is New Zealanders’ apathy in the face of these gradual incursions into our
legislated liberties.
“The Electoral Finance Act is a case in point. Apparently, according to the Act’s preamble, this encourages public
participation in parliamentary democracy.
However, he said, “It is clearly not an attempt to encourage public participation in elections. Nor is it drafted to
confer transparency upon the process. Rather, it is designed to impose cost, difficulty and criminal consequences upon
those who might try.”
And Mr Horton holds out no hope that the emergence of the essentially uncontrollable online media will save the day.
“Within ten years of the internet’s popular acceptance, we have more blogs, web pages, digital TV and radio stations
than we can count. Millions more chat and text away on their mobile phones or download podcasts onto their
multi-function portable electronic devices.
But online media is not free speech, he argued, because the internet is not yet the most popularly accepted means of
imparting information and discussion.
“However much information you can obtain, it has no practical use unless it can be freely exchanged and discussed within
the popular culture.”
We are social animals. Our most valuable experiences are those we can share with others. We mostly watch the same TV
shows read the same newspapers or magazines and listen to the same radio programmes.”
Most people will choose to consume the media that most other people are consuming because the legitimacy of a medium is
defined as much by its acceptance as its content.
ENDS