“A study of the Hansard supports Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick’s allegation that Speaker Gerry Brownlee gives New Zealand First’s Winston Peters a latitude he denies her, and other MPs who challenge Peters’ conduct.” #nzpol
The Speaker’s selective severity: Rules for Swarbrick, rank for Peters
A study of the Hansard supports Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick’s allegation that Speaker Gerry Brownlee gives New Zealand First’s Winston Peters a latitude he denies her, and other MPs who c…
sanjanah.wordpress.com
![In an interim decision, released to the NZ Herald by the court yesterday, Judge Kate Davenport said the applicant had complained to Netsafe in March and May about posts on Bradbury’s The Daily Blog.
The complainant - whose name cannot be published because of a court order - believed the posts had breached the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
“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," said the judge.
“Having read the posts complained of, it is clear that the applicant has established a breach of those communication principles on an interim basis.”
The complainant had set out in their affidavit “the significant personal emotional distress” that they had suffered, said the judge in her interim decision.
The complainant said the “multiple posts had a profound impact” on their mood and they were “depressed”, “fearful” and worried for their safety.
The complainant said they had asked Bradbury to stop, “but he made further harmful comments” and suggested that if the person had been abused, then they should contact Netsafe or the police, according to the interim decision.
The complainant wanted the material taken down or disabled.
They also wanted Bradbury to stop what he was doing or not do it again; that he not encourage any other person to engage in similar communications; and that he publish an apology.
The judge granted an interim order for the removal of the posts, but was not prepared – on an interim basis – for an apology to be issued.
The judge noted in the interim decision that the Harmful Digital Communications Act “exists not to restrict free speech but to restrict harmful digital communications”.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:lfv4566rg2djk5uquyxmbrea/bafkreicwnj2gcizhdqbam6umzsus67qxhjb4e23mclc3dmtmd53ye3vj5y)
