Freedom of expression: is there a limit?
Did Councillor Bydder misunderstand what freedom means?
Hamilton City Councillor Andrew Bydder has made the news because of an expletive-ridden and insulting submission he’s written, affecting the Mayor of Waipā. As reported on RNZ, one unredacted phrase was “get off your fat arse”, but there was worse. Some of his words were especially offensive to people with disability.
There’s been talk of a code-of-conduct complaint. In his own defence, however, Cr Bydder cited section 14 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
He’s quoted as saying defiantly: “I have the right. Those councillors who complain about me are breaking the law. They can f**k off.”
The parties involved can now fight it out with lawyers, if need be, but I’ll explain why Cr Bydder is philosophically in the wrong.
Of course he has the right to freedom of expression, or freedom of speech. I’m a big defender of that. But with freedom comes responsibility. That’s standard liberal-democratic thinking. Freedoms or liberties don’t give us licence to do or say anything we want, especially if it may harm someone else’s freedoms. There’s a version of the Golden Rule we could apply here, although admittedly there are going to be arguments about what’s actually “harmful” in particular cases.
In general, though, to insult others does not express or expand my freedom. It’s not a meaningful or effective use of my liberty.
Abusing others belittles or even threatens them, and hence reduces their sense of personal freedom. Furthermore, it diminishes the abuser’s freedom. A person who unleashes invective is letting themselves be controlled by their passions, or by their less-developed side, rather than choosing to use common sense, reason and compassion.
Especially in online forums such as X, some people argue that freedom of speech gives them a permit to insult others. “You can’t stop me from insulting you because I have free speech”. I argue that the opposite is the case. Outright insults, abuse or threats diminish our freedoms. To realise ourselves as free means to treat others with equal respect as free beings. It’s a reciprocated thing, not just a private personal right.
On the other hand, one can, and often must, criticise what others say when they say things that are false or hypocritical or fail to take account of relevant facts and evidence. One can disagree with others – without insults, abuse or threats – on matters of evidence, logic and principles. The impact of a person’s speech on others could be a valid cause for objecting to what they said or to how they said it – although there’s no hard and fast law here. It’s a matter of ethical judgement as to where we draw the line.
For example, I’m reluctant to condemn stand-up comedians, who have a difficult job these days. What they do is clearly labelled “comedy” and they aim to ridicule our boundaries. That’s why we laugh.
Cr Bydder wasn’t joking, but his effort to defend what he wrote by claiming a legal “freedom of expression” fails on philosophical grounds. He can’t hide from social disapproval by citing “free speech” on this occasion, given the strength of the insults. People are free to tell him they disapprove and they needn’t “f**k off” at all.
Now that his rant is in the news, the rest of the community can use their freedom of expression to say what they think about it. In disagreeing with his point about rights under section 14, I haven’t insulted him with foul language or nasty names. It would not have helped my argument at all to do so.
Behind it all, by the way, is a serious local concern, about which you can read here.
This image was AI-generated on Gencraft.
I would expect a local body council to have a code of conduct that expects councillors to communicate respectfully and not behave in a way that brings the council into disrepute - and certainly not to communicate in a discriminatory way - for example by making fun of people with disabilities. Councillor Bydder may not have read his council handbook. I expect there will be disciplinary consequences for him, and hopefully he’ll emerge from them “a sadder and a wiser man” (assuming he identifies as male). Somehow I have a feeling that he may.
Hi Grant,
Thanks for the post. For me the key thing is the difference between what’s legally protected vs. private consequences. So my take would be, while the law might protect Bydder’s speech from criminal prosecution, it doesn't protect him from the myriad other consequences of that speech. Which might include disciplinary action by his employer for breach of a code of conduct, loss of faith and respect from his electorate, etc etc. Bydder has exposed himself and that’s a useful function of free speech.
I certainly think there should be a VERY high bar for what can’t legally be expressed, and it should be as well defined as possible. Chiefly for the issue you alluded to - who will be the censor? No human is wise enough I’d say. As you’ve discussed in previous posts, free speech is not absolute which I agree with. I do however believe we should try to get as close to absolute as possible. In my view every step away from the absolute is a step towards tyranny, however necessary it might be.
Regarding social platforms, I’ve got one leg in the camp which says it’s a private platform and they are entitled to set their own rules. However, given their size, ubiquity, and propensity for government manipulation I don’t think it’s that simple. I think regulation of censorship by social media platforms is a conversation worth having.
Ngā mihi
Rhys