Press Release from Stephen Taylor, Law & Justice
Spokesman for the Conservative Party of New
Zealand
The Free Speech Union (FSU) now faces an
extraordinary test of its credibility after one of its own
Board members, political commentator Ani O’Brien, has been
revealed as the previously unnamed woman who brought court
proceedings against blogger Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury
under New Zealand’s Harmful Digital Communications Act
2015 (HDCA).
O’Brien appeared before the Auckland
District Court and asked Judge David Sharp to lift name
suppression so that she could be publicly identified. She
told the Court that speculation surrounding the case,
including speculation about an organisation on whose Board
she sits, was “causing more harm than good”.
The
revelation creates an obvious and deeply troubling
contradiction for the Free Speech Union.
The FSU has
repeatedly campaigned against the HDCA, describing it as a
law capable of being “weaponised” to silence lawful
expression. In November 2025, FSU Chair Stephen Franks said
the Act had become a “weapon for censorship” and called
for it to be repealed. The FSU subsequently stated that it
had consistently advocated “HDCA repeal or reform”,
arguing that adults should not be able to use the
legislation as a mechanism to silence other
adults.
Yet one of the people sitting on the FSU’s own
governing body has herself invoked that very legislation in
proceedings against a political commentator.
“This
is the definition of political and ideological hypocrisy,”
said Stephen Taylor.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
“You cannot spend years telling
New Zealanders that the Harmful Digital Communications Act
is a dangerous instrument of censorship, campaigning for its
repeal, and warning about people using it to silence speech
— and then have one of your own Board members use that
same Act to take a political commentator to
court.”
“The issue isn’t whether Ani O’Brien likes
what Martyn Bradbury said. The issue is whether the
principles of free speech apply equally when the speech is
directed at you.”
The FSU’s own website currently
identifies O’Brien as a member of its governing Council and
describes her as a political commentator and women’s-rights
advocate. It also identifies her as a host of the FSU’s
nationwide “Good Faith Yarns” tour.
Taylor said
the FSU now has some serious questions to
answer.
“Does the Free Speech Union still believe
the HDCA is fundamentally flawed?”
“Does it still
believe that the Act can be used as a tool for
censorship?”
“Does it still believe that political
commentary deserves special protection?”
“And,
most importantly, does it believe those principles apply to
people whose political views the FSU and its Board members
disagree with?”
The FSU itself has recently argued
that political commentary should receive greater protection
under the HDCA. In its support for proposed reforms, the
organisation specifically endorsed protections for political
commentary, public interest speech and lawful-purpose
defences.
“Martyn Bradbury is not someone I would
normally expect the Conservative Party to be defending,”
Taylor said.
“But freedom of speech isn’t supposed
to depend upon whether we like the person speaking. That is
precisely the point.”
“If the FSU is genuinely a
free-speech organisation, it should be prepared to defend
the principle of free expression even when the speaker is
Martyn Bradbury — and even when the person seeking to
restrict that speech is one of its own Board
members.”
Taylor said the Conservative Party
believes New Zealand needs a much stronger commitment to
freedom of political expression, and the Conservative Party
of New Zealand will work to repeal the HDCA if the Party is
in a position to do so after the General
Election.
“We should be extremely cautious about
laws that allow people to obtain court orders restricting
political commentary. There will inevitably be circumstances
where genuinely harmful digital conduct needs to be
addressed, particularly threats, harassment, intimidation
and the publication of intimate material.”
“In
addition, the vacuous, subjective, and sans-evidence term
“harm” within the HDCA legislation needs to have legislative
certainty in its definition, as opposed to being used as a
weaponised cudgel for any delicate, thin-skinned petal
offended by hurty-words, or when threatened by the natural
consequences of being held to legitimate accountability as a
result of their own behaviour”.
“There is a
fundamental difference between protecting people from
genuine harm and creating a legal mechanism that can be used
to suppress political criticism.”
“The FSU has
spent years making that argument. It cannot suddenly become
less important because one of its own people is
involved.”
Taylor said he was not prejudging the
merits of the underlying court proceedings, nor the
allegations made by either party.
“The courts must
determine whether the communications in question breached
the law. That is not my role, and the communications at the
centre of the proceedings remain subject to court
restrictions.”
“But the political and
philosophical contradiction is entirely legitimate to
examine.”
“If the Free Speech Union wants to
retain any credibility as New Zealand’s leading free-speech
advocacy organisation, it needs to explain why the
principles it campaigns for apparently become more
complicated when one of its own Board members is the
complainant.”
“Free speech cannot mean freedom for
the people we agree with and legal protection from criticism
for the people we don’t.”
“That isn’t free speech.
It is free speech for me, but not for
thee.”
