Companies canmake own choices

Once upon a time, right-of-centre politicians used to support free markets and personal responsibility. If supermarkets decide that they no longer wish to stock a supplier’s product, the supplier can change the product to make it more desirable, or look for other outlets. Few politicians would support government intervention to force supermarkets to stock products they don’t wish to sell.

Privately owned social media companies like Twitter and Facebook are modern-day supermarkets for ideas. If a content provider repeatedly violates their terms of use, social media companies have every right to terminate that provider’s access. The provider is free to change their behaviour and produce content that meets the socialmedia companies’ requirements, or find another outlet.

Certain right-of-centre politicians, particularly Republicans in the United States, cry censorship when a private company decides it no longer wants them to supply content. They demand government intervention to shield them from the consequences of their actions.

There are many aspects of the global social media market where government intervention is needed, such as anticompetitive practices and tax avoidance. So-called suppression of free speech is not one of them.

John Rankin, Te Aro

A crucial difference

In Hate speech laws are needed, but might have little effect (Jan 9) Martin van Beynen reports that the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques recommends that ‘‘hate speech should have an independent charge in the Crimes Act which would include prohibitions on hate speech against religion’’. It doesn’t.

Paragraph 36 of the commission’s report states: ‘‘We propose a reframed offence that more accurately targets behaviour warranting criminal prosecution and that encompasses hate speech directed at religious affiliation.’’

The difference is crucial. If the Crimes Act was amended in accordance with van Beynen’s wording, Iwould not be able to criticise a religion for fear of prosecution. If the Crimes Act is amended in accordance with the recommendation of the royal commission, Iwill be able to criticise any religion publicly as much as I think it deserves, without any such fear. Its adherents may not like it, but the commission is not recommending that I be silenced.

Peter Clemerson, Khandallah

Online hate

I agree with Martin van Beynen on hate speech laws. They are needed to send a clear message that incitement of violence and abuse against particular groups will not be condoned in anyway.

But how do we manage online platforms where hate speech in the form of divisive, inflammatory and violent rhetoric can be found? One example is the reactions of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to US President Donald Trump after the rioting at the US Capitol. Do these companies have robust policies on censorship and hate speech?

Margaret Butler, Johnsonville

Belittling viewpoints

Opinion articles are designed to engender debate and Martin van Beynen is eminently capable of eliciting that. His most recent column is such. The majority of it is a sensible and informing discussion of the pros and cons of hate speech legislation, one in which his logic speaks for itself and informs the wider debate.

Unfortunately, he strays into belittling viewpoints he obviously finds illegitimate: ‘‘leaders of the generally leftwing and politically correct media’’ and, within his own family, ‘‘liberal, lefty progressives’’. Older white righties are not advancing sensible, respectful debate with older white lefties and a phalanx of others by injecting invective into their argument within the media to which he contributes.

Van Beynen already knows, as do the rest of The Dominion Post’s readers, that ‘‘ more extreme views of like minded-individuals[ already] feed off each other in the frisson of living in a clandestine world’’. Washington DC on January 6 showed what happens when old white conservatives stir up that cauldron bubbling under the surface of social media. Thankfully most of them distrust the ‘‘real media’’ such as The Dominion Post/Te Upoko-O-Te-Ika so will not have read Martin’s column.

In the meantime I, for one, amhappy that ‘‘the Labour Government, egged on by the Greens’’, following a select committee hearing and report, will come to sensible legislation that avoids van Beynen’s pitfalls. He, I and lots of others should make submissions tomake that so. Steve Farrow, Wilton

Mr Has-Bean?

Martin van Beynen’s column quotes Rowan Atkinson. In daring to denounce the ‘‘cancel’’ culture, which by determining what we can and cannot laugh at is destroying the art of comedy, is Atkinson running the risk of becoming a Has-Bean?

Crispin Walters, Queensland

NZ open to abuse

Many Kiwi commentators have been lording it over the United States, saying it is no longer intact as a democracy. These commentators need to be reminded that, through all the chaos in the US, its written constitution has maintained the checks and balances that our democracy in New Zealand lacks.

We in New Zealand do not have a written constitution, and as Sir Geoffrey Palmer warned in a talk to the Nelson Residents Association 18 months ago, the door is open for abuse of power by any government.

The introduction of ‘‘hate speech’’ laws by the current Government will open the door to interpretation of whose political views are incorrect. Who is going to make that judgment when the police come knocking at your door?

Dan McGuire, Nelson

Better political models

The events in Washington DC on January 6 are an important lesson to Western democracies such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. American-style democracy is fragile; it can be corrupted and it is susceptible to radical insurrection. In this case the insurrection failed, but it might have succeeded.

The problem is that we conflate the US’ political model with its economic success. The US is a very large economy, but that is not due to its governance or political ethos. It has failed on equity; it has a huge underclass of impoverished and a small elite of exceptionally rich.

January 6 shows that its implementation of democracy is fundamentally flawed. A president tried to become an dictator.

In New Zealand we should look to other governance models, such as Switzerland or the Scandinavian nations. The US is not united; there are better models to aspire to.

Peter D Graham, Island Bay

Palestinian vaccines

It is very disturbing to read the nonsense that John Minto (Letters, Jan 8) is espousing regarding Palestinian vaccinations. Unfortunately, Green MP Golriz Ghahraman has been espousing the same, stating that the Israelis are withholding Covid-19 vaccinations from the Palestinians.

The facts are: the Palestinian Authority is responsible for vaccinating those Palestinians living under its jurisdiction, according to agreements reached between the Israelis and the Palestinians; Israel has been vaccinating those Arab citizens of Israel along with the general population who are part of the sovereign State of Israel.

There is no discrimination.

Pastor Nigel Woodley, Hastings [abridged]