Leaning to freedom in a flood
Now more than ever, an official who scrutinises content on behalf of an entire country will feel like they are trying to hold back a flood.
In New Zealand, that person is the Chief Censor. Even the title sounds archaic, like Grand Inquisitor. You picture an elderly person in a small room with scissors and a disapproving expression.
In fact, outgoing Chief Censor David Shanks is on record as saying a censor should always put freedom first: ‘‘If you don’t have to censor, then don’t. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech: these are precious rights.’’ MostNew Zealanders would agree.
It is to Shanks’ credit that his five years in the role have not been marked by the unpopular censorship decisions made by his predecessors. Older readers might recall an ugly censorship stoush in the early 1990s when a previous chief censor, JaneWrightson, pulled a film about a serial killer from the NZ International Film Festival.
There are different challenges now than boundary-pushing art films or pornographic magazines.
There is the internet, against which Shanks and others in similar roles overseas are fighting a losing battle.
In an exit interview thisweek he said ‘‘we haven’t got a healthy internet’’. The trend lines tell him things will get worse, not better.
Much of the content that worried Shanks over the past few years has not been the kind of material that usually causes problems for censors. The toughest call Shanks had to make in his five years came after the
March 15, 2019, terror attack.
Shanks banned the video filmed by the Christchurch terrorist, which was streamed live to Facebook and widely shared. He followed thatwith the less obvious decision to ban the terrorist’s so-called manifesto.
But you cannot ever fully ban anything from the internet.
In another demonstration of the internet’s reach, the terrorist’s online radicalisation will form part of the inquest into the attacks.
In February 2022, Shanks banned a so-called documentary about the terror attacks, which claimed they were a ‘‘false flag’’ incident, meaning theywere staged for political purposes.
Another notable event during Shanks’ time as Chief Censorwas his reclassification of the controversial Netflix series 13 Reasons Why. Those under 18 could watch the series only in the company of a parent. But it is likely few teenagers observed the rule.
Given the power and reach of streaming services, and the internet more generally, a degree of futility surrounds the role of a Chief Censor.
Shanks has openly said the current framework is outdated and no longer fit for purpose.
The Government agrees and has launched amajor review of content regulation.
But, as with its failed attempt to define and outlaw hate speech, the
Government is at risk of being heavy-handed.
The definition of ‘‘harm’’ outlined by the Department of Internal Affairs is very broad, extending beyond harm to individuals and communities to ‘‘harm to wider society’’, which ‘‘might look like individuals or communities losing trust in, or access to, key public institutions such as the legal, health and education systems, freedoms of identity and expression, and democratic participation’’.
There is scope for the squashing of dissenting opinions in that final section. We must heed Shanks’ words about always erring on the side of freedom over censorship.