5. Conclusions — Ngā whakamutunga
Media expert John Burrows describes the right to freedom of expression as a ‘terribly
difficult balance’:
If you don’t regulate enough, unquestionably people can be hurt. If you’re
too free, you can damage society, you can damage individuals. At the other end,
if you’re too regulated and too restricted, the public aren’t given
the information they need. It is the most difficult area in the whole of the
law to get right. There are just so many cross currents, so many important interests
in it, that to strike the correct balance that will please everybody is virtually
impossible.
Where New Zealand does well — Ngā mahi pai e oti nei i Aotearoa
Top
- New Zealand has ratified ICCPR Article 19, the right to freedom of opinion and
expression, and legislated domestically for freedom of expression in section
14 of the BoRA.
- The BoRA has had the positive effect of progressively influencing the legislature,
the judiciary, policy-making and public thinking about the importance of freedom
of expression in a modern democracy and has ensured a higher profile for this
fundamental human right.
- Through sections 61 and 131 of the HRA, New Zealand has legislated to give effect
to Article 20 of the ICCPR, which requires legislation prohibiting advocacy of
racial hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
- Section 61, despite the high threshold at which it takes effect:
- provides a precautionary framework for serious racial hatred and xenophobia,
should these occur in New Zealand in the future
- demonstrates the commitment of the legislature to vulnerable and disadvantaged
groups and their protection from serious harm.
- New Zealand has a strong international reputation for freedom of the press. One
expression of this is the light-handed regulatory regime for broadcasting, the
self-regulation of the print media, and the absence of specific regulatory constraints
on the internet. This and other self-imposed restraints on the grounds of social
responsibility lead many stakeholders to conclude New Zealand has it ‘about
right’ in relation to striking a balance between freedom of expression
and social responsibility and the protection of vulnerable and disadvantaged
groups.
Where we need to do better — Kia piki ake te pai i roto i enei wahanga
Top
- Few media and public opportunities exist for both informed stakeholders and members
of the public to freely debate, in an informed and constructive manner, the modern
tensions between the right to freedom of expression and social responsibility
(for example, the impact of hate speech).
- While education about the right to freedom of expression is widely seen as important
to protecting it while balancing the rights of vulnerable groups such as children,
it is currently poorly coordinated, resourced, presented and disseminated.
Understanding would be improved by:
- information in non-legal language about the importance of the BoRA
- public education opportunities to develop strategies for exercising
a right of reply
- journalist and newsroom training aimed at improving news media coverage
of Maori, Pacific peoples and ethnic minorities
- greater inclusion in the primary and secondary curricula of media literacy
opportunities
- development of individual protection and responsibilities in relation
to the internet
- industry, Government and public commitment to the precautionary model
in relation to television violence
- continuing public education about the use of complaints mechanisms,
including section 61 of the HRA, that relate to aspects of freedom of expression.
