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.
I agree, Kai. I wonder though if blokes like him take pride in being recalcitrant. And I'll be interested to see what voters say if he runs again next year.
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.
Excellent thoughts, thanks Rhys. And nice to hear from you. As far as I know, the councillor hasn’t broken any law, and, like you, I’d prefer it that way. But public reaction, supporting or rejecting his words, is all a part of the free speech principle. It’ll be interesting to see what effect it has on his re-election (if he stands again). His local ward might back him. The Nobby Clark controversy in Invercargill is similar. I believe though that those with public profiles and duties have to restrain what they say more than the average dude in a pub! All the best. Grant
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.
I agree, Kai. I wonder though if blokes like him take pride in being recalcitrant. And I'll be interested to see what voters say if he runs again next year.
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
Excellent thoughts, thanks Rhys. And nice to hear from you. As far as I know, the councillor hasn’t broken any law, and, like you, I’d prefer it that way. But public reaction, supporting or rejecting his words, is all a part of the free speech principle. It’ll be interesting to see what effect it has on his re-election (if he stands again). His local ward might back him. The Nobby Clark controversy in Invercargill is similar. I believe though that those with public profiles and duties have to restrain what they say more than the average dude in a pub! All the best. Grant