The judge questioned the self-represented blogger’s understanding of free speech rights
Auckland District Court judge David Sharp has instructed blogger Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury to talk to his lawyer after the judge questioned the blogger’s understanding of free speech rights at a proceeding, reported the NZ Herald.
Bradbury appeared before the court today 4 August over four posts he made on his site, The Daily Blog, that reportedly included “personal attacks”, “ridiculing” and abuse, according to a complainant who is under court-ordered name suppression. The complainant, who filed a complaint with Netsafe in March and May, claimed that Bradbury violated the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
Per the complainant’s affidavit, the posts triggered depression and fear and caused them to be concerned for their safety. The complainant had reportedly requested Bradbury to stop but he “made further harmful comments” and recommended that they reach out to Netsafe or the police if they had been abused, judge Kate Davenport wrote in an interim decision provided to the Herald yesterday 3 August.
“Netsafe has completed their investigations and assessed the complaint against: (a) Principal 4 – a digital communication should not be indecent or obscene [and] (b) Principal 5 – a digital communication should not be used to harass an individual”, Davenport said in a snippet of the ruling published by the Herald. “Having read the posts complained of, it is clear that the applicant has established a breach of those communication principles on an interim basis”.
Davenport ordered Bradbury to take the posts down in the ruling. Nonetheless, on an interim basis she was not prepared to order the blogger to apologise. She wrote in her decision that the Harmful Digital Communications Act “exists not to restrict free speech but to restrict harmful digital communications”, per a snippet published by the Herald.
The complainant made a video appearance at today’s proceeding to confirm presence and identity, but was not required to say more.
Bradbury indicated in recent The Daily Blog posts that he would seek to restore the posts. He refused to apologise to the complainant, called the case a “terrible abuse of process”, and said that he was willing to be imprisoned to protect the principle of free speech.
However, Sharp challenged Bradbury’s understanding of the right to free speech.
“You’ve got concerns with the limitations on the right to free speech. That’s something that’s understood, but you also need to understand that the right to free speech is not absolute”, the judge said in a statement published by the Herald.
Sharp announced that he was adjourning the case until next Thursday 13 August so that Bradbury would have an opportunity to seek legal advice and reflect on the judge’s words.
“You should, at least in my view and it will be subject to what your counsel tells you ... but you should take down anything which is contrary to your own ruling and await your decision to set it aside because otherwise you run the risk of being found to be in contempt of court”, Sharp told Bradbury in a statement published by the Herald.
Bradbury expressed disappointment with the judge’s decision, though he indicated that he would be obtaining legal advice.
“I’m going to have to wait for this fiasco to be sorted in court”, the blogger said outside court in a statement published by the Herald. “I am very determined to see this through. This is a free speech issue”.
Free Speech Union (FSU) chair Stephen Franks invited Bradbury to reach out to the group if he thought he had been wrongly censored.
“Given his long hostility to the Free Speech Union, that might be difficult for him, but we regularly defend people many of us disagree with. We choose cases that highlight key principles”, Franks said in a statement published by the Herald.
Bradbury indicated that he had gotten in touch with the union.
Franks criticised the Harmful Digital Communications Act and said in a statement published by the Herald that it authorised courts to easily “shut down lawful expression, including speech about powerful people that the public has every right to hear”. He said that the FSU sought the law’s amendment.
“Every citizen may use the protections Parliament has enacted, whatever any of us thinks of them. Lawyers do it every day, applying rules for their clients that they would rather see abolished tomorrow. It is the ordinary use of the law as it stands, and it is exactly why leaving bad law in force is so dangerous. Bad law does not sit quietly. It gets used”, Franks said in a statement published by the Herald.
