Civil liberties expert Nadine Strossen has been in New Zealand on a tour organised by the Free Speech Union.
As part of that tour she has been meeting with politicians and senior public servants, in part to discuss the Government's proposed hate speech reforms, which were recently referred to the Law Commission for further work.
Strossen, who spent 17 years as the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, told Q+A that existing legislation covering speech — the Human Rights Act — should have wording relating to colour, race, ethnic or national origins removed.
"Eliminate most of the language and confine it to intentional incitement of imminent violence or lawless action, against anybody, because all of us should be entitled to that protection," she said.
"Every individual should be protected against being targeted by intentional incitement of imminent violence — and by the way, every single one of us belongs to multiple of those categories."
In Strossen's view, laws that criminalise forms of speech are far more likely to be turned against minority groups, rather than protecting them.
Former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, professor Nadine Strossen, joined Q+A to discuss how New Zealand should change speech laws, and speech issues raised by the recent visit of anti-trans activist Posie Parker. (Source: 1News)
"In the United States we have a lot of debate about police use of excessive violence, including against minority communities, and yet we have the Black Lives Matter activist movement being attacked by many powerful officials as hate speech — as inciting hostility against white people."
Strossen added that hate speech laws are "not doing anything meaningful to attack the root causes of these attitudes" against minority groups.
On the recent visit of anti-trans speaker Kelly-Jay Keen-Minshull, also known as Posie Parker, Strossen argued a form of censorship had been shown by counter-protesters.
Parker had been prevented from delivering a planned speech at Albert Park, and at one point a bottle of tomato juice was poured on her.
Strossen described the incident as an example of the "heckler's veto".
"From what I've read, she was not allowed to proceed with a speech that she had been invited to give in a public venue, therefore depriving her of freedom of speech."
She said if a speaker was in "reasonable fear" of their safety, then that would prevent them from exercising their free speech.
Strossen also argued that counter-protesters who shouted her down were engaged in a similar form of censorship.
"They certainly would have the right to shout briefly, but if they're shouting in such a sustained manner that they prevent her from being heard, that is effective censorship — the message cannot be conveyed."
Q+A is Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ on Air
SHARE ME