• 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

SPCS revitalised campaign against gratuitous sexual violence in films – ignited censorship debate

October 5, 2014 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Prior to its application to become a registered charity with the Charities Commission, the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (SPCS) engaged in a “revitalised campaign” against gratuitous sexually explicit movies screened in New Zealand cinemas, focusing on those such as Baise-Moi (French = “Rape-Me”) which was scheduled as an opening show-piece in the now defunct Beck’s Incredible Film Festival (B.I.F.F.) directed by Mr Ant Timpson. The R18 classifications issued to this morally putrid film and others like the Japanese film Visitor Q, were appealed by the Society to the Film and Literature Board of Review, to test whether or not the Chief Censor Bill Hastings and his staff had correctly applied the censorship laws to safeguard the “public good”.

Both films were effectively shut out of Timpson’s B.I.F.F. and after protracted litigation through the courts, the Court of Appeal issued decisions upholding in large part the concerns raised by SPCS. The Society contended that the Chief Censor had well passed his “use-by date” as a competent censor, having become “desensitised” by excessive exposure to the injurious, corrupting and toxic impact of so many films containing explicit sexual content and gratuitous sexual violence he had had to view. The vast bulk of publications (films, videos, DVDs and magazines etc) he had “examined” over his lengthy career as a censor involved the degradation, dehumanisation and demeaning of women and are “injurious to the public good”. The Society’s concerns about the Chief Censor and his Deputy Ms Nicola McCully, were taken up by a number of MPs in the House of Representatives and eventually Hastings left the job.

Bill Hastings served as NZ’s tenth Chief Censor from October 1999 to July 2010. Prior to that he was Deputy and Acting Chief Censor from December 1998 to October 1999. He was a member of the Indecent Publications Tribunal from 1990 to 1994 and Deputy President of the Film and Literature Board of Review from 1995 to 1998. He played a key role as Deputy of that Board in issuing a highly controversial decision that banned the “talking heads” Living Word videos. This decision was subsequently overturned  by the Court of Appeal and the videos were classified as “unrestricted”. The Board was forced to concede the obvious – the videos contained nothing that remotely came within the five censorship “jurisdictional gateways” of the censorship Act – involving “sex, horror, crime, or cruelty or violence” – the basis upon which a publication can  be classified “objectionable”.

Download a high-resolution PDF version here.

David Lane SPCS - Revitalised campaign against gratuitous sexual violence in films
David Lane SPCS Revitalised campaign against gratuitous sexual violence in films

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Censorship, Film Ratings, Porn Link to Rape Tagged With: Ant Timpson, Anthony Timpson, Baise-Moi, Beck's Incredible Film Festival, BIFF, Bill Hastings, Bully, Chief Censor, David Lane, Film and Literature Boiard of Review, free speech, Karl du Frene, Living Word videos, Paramount Cinema, sexual exploitation, sexual violence, Visitor Q

Judge backs blogger’s fight against fraud – Auckland District Court decision King vs Taylor

May 25, 2014 by SPCS Leave a Comment

A fraudster’s victim who fought back has won a landmark battle to name and shame the man who scammed him and dozens of others. The Sunday Star Times (p. A5) in its report today describes the anti-fraud campaigner Steve Taylor as an “Online hero” (caption  below his colour photo).

Re: Auckland District Court decision by Judge DM Wilson QC dated 24 April 2014  – Grant Norman King (Applicant) vs Stephen Dylan Taylor (Respondent) CIV -2014-004-000122

Lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, who advised [Steve] Taylor and has been the victim of online harassment herself, said the judge’s decision showed free speech was alive and well.

She said the unique nature of the case, setting a new precedent in harassment laws, meant it was already being used by media law professors at Auckland University.

Taylor’s website [http://www.grantnormanking.com/] also resulted in King being punished. Since setting up the website, Taylor said more than 70 victims had come forward, across a 32-year span, claiming losses of more than $3 million.

As a result, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry of Social Development began their own investigations, which ultimately led to eight convictions against King for fraud. According to Taylor’s timeline, the pattern of dishonesty started when King was convicted of receiving stolen vehicles in 1982.

See Full story by Rob Kid published 25/05/14

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10081333/Judge-backs-bloggers-fight-against-fraud
[Read more…]

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Crime, Enforcement Tagged With: Fraud, fraudster, free speech, Grant Norman King, harassment laws, harrassment laws, Madeleine Flannagan, Steve Taylor

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.