• Home
  • About
  • Objectives
  • Membership
  • Donations
  • Activities
  • Research Reports
  • Submissions
  • Newsletters
  • Contact

SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

  • Censorship
    • Censorship & New Technology
    • Film Ratings
    • Films
  • Crime
    • Rape statistics
    • Television Violence
    • Violence
    • Youth Crime
  • Enforcement
  • Family
    • Anti-smacking Bill
    • Families Commission
    • Marriage
  • Gambling Addiction
  • Political Advocacy
  • Pro-life
    • Abortion
  • Prostitution
  • Sexuality
    • Child Sex Crimes
    • Civil Unions
    • HIV/AIDS STIs
    • Homosexuality
    • Kinsey Fraud
    • Porn Link to Rape
    • Pornography
    • Sex Studies
    • Sexual Dysfunction
  • Other
    • Alcohol abuse
    • Announcement
    • Application For Leave
    • Broadcasting Standards Authority
    • Celebrating Christian Tradition
    • Children’s Television
    • Complaints to Broadcasters
    • Computer games
    • Film & Lit Board Reviews
    • Film & Lit. Board Appointments
    • Human Dignity
    • Moral Values
    • Newsletters
    • Newspaper Articles
    • Recommended Books
    • Submissions
    • YouTube

Right to offend a sign of a healthy society – by Paul Moon

April 4, 2017 by SPCS Leave a Comment

A vibrant society permits heretic views to be expressed””, says Paul Moon, [Professor of History at the Faculty of Maori Development at Auckland University of Technology] in this Opinion Piece from The Dominion Post, Tuesday, (4 April 2017}, p. A 7.

A plea for free speech in our universities might seem about as unnecessary as a demand that all people be treated equally under the law.

After all, the Education Act asserts clearly the right of academics to speak as critics and consciences of society – supposedly securing universities as bastions of independent thought and open expression.

Yet, recent events at home and overseas are endangering freedom of speech at our universities.

Threats against minority communities in New Zealand, and in other Western countries, and terrorist attacks in Europe are having a chilling effect. A recent study of 115 British universities found only seven had not experienced some sort of censorship, ban or intervention which curbed free speech.

The right to free speech is so ingrained in New Zealand’s ethos that today a diverse group of 27 high-profile New Zealanders has released an open letter warning of “the forceful silencing of dissenting or unpopular views” on our university campuses.

Its signatories include not only academics, and business and community leaders, but some of our most outspoken commentators, including Sir Bob Jones, Dr Don Brash, Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Dame Turiana Turia.

Of course, with rights come with responsibilities. Freedom of speech must have some constraints; that’s why it is a crime to incite hatred and violence. And damaging someone’s reputation – outside the privileged protection provided at universities and Parliament – can end in a defamation suit.

Just as the courts and the media must always jealously guard freedom of speech from state controls, so must our universities.

The pretext of avoiding offence is regularly hauled out as the basis for curtailing free speech on campuses. If a group is offended by an idea or argument, it is increasingly – and misguidedly – believed it is better to ban or “disinvite” the causers rather than ruffle sensitivities or risk the speaker being drowned out by vigorous protest.

This patronising sanctimony continues to gain ground along with an absurd notion that universities should provide intellectual “safe-spaces”.

There is no inalienable right not to be offended. It is paradoxical that those who clamour for such “safe spaces” often seem untroubled by the intimidation being used to shut down unpopular speech.

It is precisely these intellectually dangerous or subversive spaces that academics and students must enter and explore. Political dissent, artistic deviance and intellectual rebellion are at the heart of a healthy and progressive society, and universities have tradtionally played a leading role in challenging conventions and ushering in new ways of thinking and doing. [Read more…]

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Censorship, Censorship & New Technology Tagged With: "hate" speech, free speech, freedom of expression, hate speech law, Paul Moon, Professor Paul Moon

‘Hate speech’ law draws opposition – Dominion Post Report

April 4, 2017 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Twenty-seven high-profile New Zealanders, including unilikely allies such as Don Brash and Dame Tariana Turia, have penned an open letter warning that freedom of speech is under threat at the country’s universities.

The campaign which was the brainchild of Auckland University of Technology history professor Paul Moon, rejects “the forceful silencing of dissenting or unpopular views” on tertiary campuses.

It also insists debate must not be suppressed because the ideas put forth “are thought by some or even by most people to be offensive, immoral, or wrong-headed”.

The move comes after an Auckland University group called the European Students Association was closed down after threats to its members amid accusations of racism. Its leaders had denied the club was racist.

The letter also follows Human Rights Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy’s February call for a review of online hate speech, and Police Commissioner Mike Bush suggesting an examination of the pros and cons of specific crime.

The open letter has been signed by academics, business leaders, community representatives and controversial commentators including Sir Bob Jones, former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Maori educationist Sir Toby Curtis, poet Albert Wendt and former MP Luamanuvao Winnie Laban.

Moon said freedom of speech was the foundation of a modern diverse and democratic society. It protected religious freedom and individual expression.

“Kneejerk calls from police and the Human Right Commission to introduce hate-speech laws after recent attacks on ethnic communities will have the unintended consequence of suppressing free speech. Education, open debate and understanding will change racist and intolerant views – not censorship,” he said.

Freedom of speech was intimately connected with freedom of thought. “There is no inalienable right not to be offended. It is dangerous and wrong to silence someone because you take offence or don’t like what they say. Of course, there are limits; that is why inciting hatred or violence is already a crime.”

The current law was working well, he added. [Read more…]

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Censorship, Censorship & New Technology, Other Tagged With: "hate" speech, free speech, freedom of expression, Paul Moon

Sexting like ‘drug addiction’ for Kiwi teens, with kids as young as 11 taking part

February 9, 2016 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Sexting is being labelled a drug-like addiction for some Kiwi teens, with increasing numbers of young people sending naked photos of themselves.

Sexting, the sending of explicit phone messages, often with naked photos, is now so common that New Zealand parents would struggle to find a teenager who has not been asked to send one, NetSafe has warned. [Netsafe Inc. is a New Zealand registered charity – Reg. No. CC24058].

The head of NetSafe is aware of children as young as 11 sexting, and said suicide was among the most-extreme outcomes.

And the problem comes with a stark warning – images can last online forever, and appear each time the sender’s name is typed into a search engine.

“For some teens, [sexting] has become quite a normal part of dating,” said NetSafe chief technology officer Sean Lyons.

“You’d be hard pressed to find a teen that hasn’t been asked to send a naked or semi-naked photo of themselves in New Zealand.”

See full article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/76672892/sexting-like-drug-addiction-for-kiwi-teens-with-kids-as-young-as-11-taking-part

 

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Censorship & New Technology Tagged With: Netsafe, sexting

Cowardly internet trolls face up to two years in jail under new laws

October 20, 2014 by SPCS Leave a Comment

“Internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life“…. They could soon face up to two years in jail under new laws …..

“No-one would permit such venom in person, so there should be no place for it on social media. That is why we are determined to quadruple the current six-month sentence.”

… it is [currently] an offence to send another person a letter or electronic communication that contains an indecent or grossly offensive message, a threat or information which is false and known or believed by the sender to be false.

For story see: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29678989

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Censorship & New Technology, Crime Tagged With: internet trolls, offensive message

Harmful Digital Communications Bill

October 7, 2014 by SPCS Leave a Comment

In June 2014, Parliament’s Justice and Electoral Select Committee reported back to Parliament on the Harmful Digital Communications Bill introduced last year and recommended amendments to toughen up the legislation.

The recommendations included a higher maximum penalty for the new offence of “causing harm by posting a digital communication” to be raised from three months in jail, or a $2000 fine, to two years in jail. This would bring the sentence in line with other harassment offences.

“…we recommend amending subclause 18(2) to provide for a maximum penalty for an individual of six months’ imprisonment or a $5,000 fine, and $20,000 for a body corporate; and amending subclause 19(3) to increase the maximum penalty for an individual to two years’ imprisonment…. We would like to emphasise that the penalties we propose are maximum penalties; a Judge would impose a sentence proportionate to the nature of the offending in each case.” (Committee Report – Commentary on proposed amendments to the Bill)

University of Canterbury law professor Ursula Cheer said individuals targeted online could pursue civil action on the grounds of defamation. [Read more…]

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Censorship & New Technology, Crime, Enforcement Tagged With: civil action, civil enforcement, defamation, grounds of defamation, harassment offences, Harmful Digital Communications Bill

Next Page »
SPCS Facebook Page

Subscribe to website updates:

The Pilgrim’s Progress

Getting "The Pilgrim’s Progress" to
every prisoner in NZ prisons.

Recent Comments

  • John on The term ‘Homophobia’: Its Origins and Meanings, and its uses in Homosexual Agenda
  • SPCS on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Anne on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000

Family Values & Community Standards

  • Coalition for Marriage
  • ECPAT New Zealand
  • Family Voice Australia
  • Parents Inc.

Internet Safety

  • Netsafe Internet Safety Group

Pro-Life Groups

  • Family Life International
  • Right to Life
  • The Nathaniel Centre
  • Voice for Life
(Click here for larger image)

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.