The Deceptive Promise of Absolute Free Speech: Why a Human Rights-Centric Approach Matters in Aotearoa

(This is the last article I will write about the FSU in general. They jumped the shark last week with their post on X about Dr Samantha Bailey. I will focus on promoting the universal human rights model going forward.)

The debate over rights in Aotearoa is reaching a critical juncture, with two distinct perspectives vying for attention and shaping the national conversation. On one side stands the Free Speech Union (FSU), championing an absolutist view of civil liberties. On the other side stand groups like Countering Hate Speech Aotearoa (CHSA) and Amnesty, who advocate for a universal human rights-based approach that respects the dignity of all individuals while honouring the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental philosophical conflict. The FSU's approach is not merely a neutral defence of free expression but a carefully orchestrated political project designed to reshape the landscape of acceptable discourse in Aotearoa. Their goal is to move the Overton window of political acceptability to the far right in service of their neoliberal masters.

The most glaring error in the FSU's philosophy is its audacious claim that free speech is the foundational right upon which all other human rights are built. This position is not just incorrect; it is fundamentally absurd. Human rights are neither hierarchical nor dependent on a single principle. They are, in fact, both independent and indivisible—a delicate, interconnected ecosystem of fundamental human dignities.

To suggest that free speech is the cornerstone from which all other rights emerge is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of human rights. How can one argue that the right to speak freely is more fundamental than the right to life itself? Can one truly exercise free speech without first having the right to exist, to be educated, to be free from persecution? The very notion collapses under its logical inconsistency.

International human rights frameworks, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), explicitly reject such a hierarchical view. Rights to life, dignity, equality, freedom from torture, education, and cultural participation are not subsidiary to free speech - they are equally crucial, mutually reinforcing principles that define our shared human experience.

The civil liberties model championed by the FSU draws heavily from American constitutional thinking, conceptualising rights primarily as protections against government interference. This approach emphasises "negative rights" - the freedom from governmental limitation in specific domains like speech, assembly, and religion. While such protections are crucial in preventing tyranny, this model suffers from profound limitations.

By treating rights as abstract, individual concepts existing in a vacuum, the FSU ignores the complex social realities in which these rights are exercised. Their framework is necessarily individualistic, overlooking the power imbalances and systemic discriminations that occur within communities. When free speech is elevated above all other considerations, it effectively prioritises the ability to speak harmful things over the right of others to live with respect and without discrimination. Crucially, their focus on a civil liberties approach is inherently libertarian, which is in line with the political philosophy of their wealthiest backers.

This is not merely an academic distinction. The real-world implications are stark and potentially devastating. When free speech is put on a pedestal above all other rights, it means that the freedom to say harmful things is deemed more important than the right of others to live with respect and without discrimination.

The FSU's recent proposed Real Estate Agents (Political Neutrality) Amendment Bill 2024 provides a stark example of their problematic approach. The bill, which they eventually hope to apply to healthcare professionals so they can say anti-trans things, would never pass the compulsory Bill of Rights Act compliance test. By prioritising professionals' ability to speak freely on "contested topics" - with sexual orientation explicitly cited as an example - the bill would effectively permit discrimination in professional practice.

Just last week, they defended a doctor's right to promote the idea that the Germ Theory of Disease is wrong, arguing they were merely promoting unorthodox ideas. This illustrates the dangerous absurdity of their position - no amount of counter-speech can undo the harm caused by the propagation of such harmful misinformation.

In contrast, the universal human rights model offers a more comprehensive and ethically grounded framework. Embodied in international agreements like the UDHR and the ICCPR, this approach recognises that human rights are universal, interconnected, and equally important. It understands rights as an ecosystem where civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights are deeply interdependent.

The FSU's argument that free speech is the cornerstone of a healthy liberal democracy fundamentally misunderstands the nature of human rights. How can one claim that the freedom to speak is the most important right when that very speech can be used to encourage violence, deny individual dignity, or spread misinformation that undermines public health and democratic processes?

International human rights standards are unambiguous. Article 19 of the ICCPR clearly states that the exercise of free speech comes with "special duties and responsibilities" and can be legitimately limited to protect the rights and reputations of others, national security, public order, public health, or morals. The FSU's tendency to portray such limitations as censorship reveals a shallow understanding of rights.

The political motivations behind the FSU become increasingly transparent when examining their selective advocacy. Their interventions consistently align with conservative "culture war" debates. Their strong support for academics questioning the value of mātauranga Māori compared to science, and their appeal against denying a visa to controversial right-wing, anti-semitic, commentator Candace Owens, suggest an alignment with specific political views rather than a consistent defence of all potentially controversial speech. They seem to be persistently obsessed with ensuring that anti-trans messages are platformed.

Perhaps most tellingly, the FSU frames threats to free speech through a distinctly political lens. Their 2024 Annual Report complains about a "free speech recession" and suggests that important questions about race, gender, climate change, vaccination, and colonialism are being silenced. By portraying progressive consensus as a form of suppression, they are actively working to create space for more conservative viewpoints.

They have just been exposed as actively encouraging an anti-trans billionaire who promotes conspiracy theories to buy into a media company. This reveals their true agenda: not to protect free speech, but to reshape the media landscape to amplify certain ideological perspectives.

Groups like CHSA and Amnesty offer a markedly different approach. Explicitly based on universal human rights principles, these groups aim to ensure that all people, especially those from marginalised communities, can live with dignity, equality, and freedom from discrimination. They recognise that challenging hate speech is not censorship, but a fundamental protection of human rights that prevents the silencing of vulnerable voices.

Their approach is deeply rooted in Aotearoa's context. They uphold the specific rights of Māori derived from Te Tiriti o Waitangi, demonstrating a commitment to addressing historical injustices and ongoing systemic discrimination. Their advocacy strongly includes protecting LGBTQIA+ rights, particularly for transgender, non-binary, and intersex individuals.

The legal framework of Aotearoa was designed upon this approach. The Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993 explicitly allow for reasonable limits on rights, understanding that true freedom requires balancing individual expression with collective well-being. Laws against inciting racial disharmony and sexual harassment demonstrate that freedom of expression has never been - and should never be - an absolute right.

As Aotearoa continues to evolve, we must reject the FSU's narrow, politically motivated interpretation of rights as civil liberties. Instead, we must embrace a comprehensive universal human rights approach that recognises the dignity of all people, addresses historical and ongoing injustices, and creates space for genuine, respectful dialogue.

The choice is clear: we can either cling to an abstract, individualistic notion of liberty that harms vulnerable communities, or we can commit to a nuanced understanding of rights that actively promotes equality, enhances mutual understanding, and furthers social cohesion. The future of Aotearoa depends on choosing the latter.