Eternal Appetite for Online Censorship
This week I’ve come across four initiatives that, while rooted in ‘good intention’, will ultimately lead us down the path of censorship. Let me explain…
1️⃣ Firstly, Netsafe launched a mini-campaign to address ‘Online Hate-speech’.
According to netsafe, their “12% of New Zealanders were personally targeted by online hate speech, while 31% witnessed it happening to someone else”
One speaker they interviewed said it plainly - “I feel safest online when there is strong moderation of hate speech”.
It’s almost like they are saying the quiet part out loud!
The problem with moderating subjective terms like ‘hate’ and prioritising safety as our north-star is that you ultimately sacrifice dialogue and debate, relationship and connection, and above all: truth.
Creating a culture around safety-ism will lead us to become much more fragile and less resilient. That is not good for any of us.
2️⃣ Secondly, I came across the Online Safety (Duties for Providers of Internet-Based Services) Bill.
This is a labour party members bill which was lodged in July 2025 just a couple of months before we launched PILLAR. The bill outlines that it’s “based on provisions from the Online Safety Act 2021 (Australia), the Online Safety Act 2023 (UK), and the Digital Services Act (EU)”.
Yes, you read that right, a bill modelled on international legislation which has been the catalyst for significant censorship across Europe and the UK and the arrest of thousands of ordinary citizens, workers and even comedians.
Do you remember you mum asking you as a child. “if your friend jumped into a ditch, would you do the same?
Need I say more than that?
3️⃣ Thirdly, this past week, PILLAR submitted on the quietly proposed Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill.
We have warned that the proposed changes to telecommunications interception laws risk serious overreach and threaten digital freedoms. As drafted, the bill lacks clear definitions, strong checks and balances, and adequate safeguards for privacy and civil liberties. Expanding state interception powers without firm limits or accountability creates a tool that future governments could misuse - and that should concern every New Zealander.
You can read our submission here and our media release here. be on the lookout as we head to speak to the select committee to improve the legislation in its current form.
4️⃣ Last but not least is the bill that we’ve been harping on about for months now, Catherine Wedd’s Social Media Restriction Bill which seeks to ban under 16 from accessing social media.
It is now just over a month since Australia banned under-16s from social media. In that time, more than five million accounts have been deleted, taken down, or suspended.
That does not mean five million fewer young people are online, only that five million enforcement actions have occurred.
Young people report simply using platforms while logged out, or shifting to non-banned alternatives like Lemon8 or Yope. For many, their online habits have barely changed.
Beyond granting an online regulator sweeping powers and creating a false sense of security for parents and caregivers, the policy has done little to achieve its stated aims.
This debate will move to the centre of the political conversation in the coming election cycle. We are watching Australia — and we are ready.
Why do I tell you all of this?
Here’s why: There is an eternal appetite for censorship.
Today, that appetite looks to censor the modern-day public square: the internet.
If you have not read former Judge David Harvey’s article on this issue, I recommend you do: The Holy Grail of Internet Content Control.
When tampering with essential freedoms, our leaders ought to at least exercise caution and moral clarity!
The reality is that ‘good-intention politics’ that reneges vigilant consideration of the foundations of our free and open democracy to signal virtue will ultimately sacrifice our freedoms at the altar of ‘safety’.
Right now, these laws and ideas are sitting idly but they won't remain still for ever. Whether its a social media ban or online platform regulation we need to be aware of the threats of such legislation. We need to be ready to say no.
We are keeping an eye on these issues and will keep sounding the alarm because as we like to say at PILLAR, we stand firm so that you can stand free.
