Aardvark Daily

New Zealand's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 25th year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.

Content copyright © 1995 - 2019 to Bruce Simpson (aka Aardvark), the logo was kindly created for Aardvark Daily by the folks at

Please visit the sponsor!
Please visit the sponsor!

Who decides what is harmful?

24 June 2021

I've written a few columns recently about the way we're losing the right to freedom of speech.

This trend to stifle free speech using organs of the state is a global one and has become prolific throughtout the Western world. In fact, change is happening at a rate that is quite frightening.

In the latest such move, the UK is moving towards creating a new act of parliament that would require social media firms and other online platforms to take responsibility for protecting their users from "harmful" or illegal content.

Can you see where this is going?

The draft Online Safety Bill would require online publishers to ensure that this "harmful" or illegal content was removed or blocked from their websites and other online services or they would face stiff legal penalties.

The problem is that although it is pretty clear when something is illegal, who gets to decide what is "harmful", this being a far more subjective determination.

There is clearly a risk, given that significant penalties could be applied against any publisher found in breach of such an act of parliament, many publishers would opt to play it safe and take an extremely conservative approach. Such a situation would likely see many people's postings blocked or deleted despite them being quite legal.

This is the very antithesis of free speech. Stopping someone from voicing an opinion or belief simply because you don't agree with it or for some other specious reason is totally unacceptable in a free society.

We are already seeing this sort of thing happening on popular platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter where many people have lost their entire accounts for simply voicing opinions that run contrary to the ideologies of the platforms concerned. In such cases the justification is "it's our platform, we make the rules and we are not bound by the US constitition's right to free speech" which, it must be acknowledged, is a valid stance.

However, when it's a government saying "no free speech" by way of a law, that is an entirely different thing.

When a government manipulates social media by using the highly subjective term "harmful", all sorts of problems appear.

Would a left-leaning government consider that pro-right-wing comments are "harmful"?

Would a government embarrassed by the leak of certain incriminating or unflattering information consider that to be "harmful"?

Drinking is harmful, Smoking is harmful. Even driving can be very harmful. So why separate the people's rights to voice an opinion or belief as being unacceptable while all these other "harms" are quite okay?

I am sorry but whilst I fully support the blocking of illegal material such as kiddy-porn, incitements to violence, etc... I think we take a huge risk if we start censoring opinions and beliefs on the basis that *someone* thinks they might be harmful.

What do readers think?

Please visit the sponsor!
Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say in the Aardvark Forums.

PERMALINK to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page


Change Font

Sci-Tech headlines



The EZ Battery Reconditioning scam

Beware The Alternative Energy Scammers

The Great "Run Your Car On Water" Scam


Recent Columns

Do not talk about racism
When I came to New Zealand in the late 1970s it was a harmonious nation of "Kiwis"...

I call Bullshirt!
There has been a lot of talk about hydrogen being the "green" fuel we need to fight climate change...

Lies and deception
Sorry, I'm talking about drones today -- or should I say I am NOT talking about drones...

Sorry for being old and late
Wow... it's lunchtime and I'm only just getting to the Aardvark column for the day...

Legalised malware
Increased surveillance by both state and private entities is causing growing paranoia within the ranks of the general public...

Oh no, the vaccine will kill me!
I published a video last week in which I mentioned that I had received my first jab of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccination...

That's working well then
The NZ government has made some sweeping changes to our gun laws of late...

Tipping point?
I read a couple of very interesting articles recently...

CV19, is the worst far from over?
July 19 is to be "freedom day" in the UK...

Plague, pestilance, now famine?
I'm not a religious person but I do admire the Bible, albeit more as a work of wonderful ambiguity than one of fact...

I got nothing
I've scanned the news-wires this morning for inspiration and I've got nothing...