Is free speech threatened?

Auckland historian Paul Moon has written an open letter that claims free speech is under threat in New Zealand universities. Moon, who teaches at the Auckland University of Technology, released the letter to the media this week. It has been signed by 27 high-profile New Zealanders, most of whom have repeatedly exercised their right to speak freely over recent decades. Names such as Sir Bob Jones, Don Brash, Brian Edwards, Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Gordon McLauchlan leap out.

It is a commendable cause. Who could ever argue against the broad idea of free speech? It is the cornerstone of a liberal democracy. But when examined more closely, it seems that Moon’s letter has overstated the threat. He cites just one example, ‘‘the forced closure of a student club at Auckland University’’, which he calls a slippery slope.

Moon refers to a proposed Auckland University European Students Association, which was not forced to close but chose to disband after media coverage and allegations of physical threats. The association said its slogans ‘‘strength through honour’’ and ‘‘our pride is our honour and loyalty’’ were not intended to have Nazi overtones. Instead, it would merely ‘‘promote European culture on campus’’. The association was followed by the appearance of more overt, Nazi-themed posters near Auckland University, attributed to a group calling itself the Western Guard.

Is free speech really threatened? As Victoria University law lecturer Eddie Clark said on Twitter, criticism of the student club was not a suppression of free speech at all, but an example of it in action.

It seems that Moon and the 27 signatories are not talking about something that is happening now, but something that may happen in future. Moon says that, ‘‘We can see in Australia, the United States, the UK, there are some very severe restrictions on freedom of speech at universities and we are very concerned that that might happen here too.’’

The violent protests that stopped the appearance of controversial author Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley, in February, were called ‘‘a free speech battle at the birthplace of a movement’’. That referred to the irony of students trying to ban someone with incendiary views, given that their predecessors had argued strongly for free expression in the 1960s. New Zealand universities are also expected to be places where free speech is cherished and where challenging ideas will be critically examined rather than suppressed.

But the freedom to offend comes with responsibilities. Those who promote views they know to be controversial should not mistake fair and robust criticism of their ideas for censorship, whether it takes place on social media, at protests or as a petition.

Moon is right to say that hate speech laws that have been suggested by Human Rights Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy are a step too far. We should not support the unnecessary regulation of speech. He is also right to say that ‘‘education, open debate and understanding will change racist and intolerant views – not censorship’’. But it is just as important that we do not exaggerate the scale of racist and intolerant threats to make rhetorical points.

The freedom to offend comes with responsibilities.