Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa'I served four years on the Broadcasting Standards Authority. With the BSA now set to be abolished by the Coalition Government following the Sean Plunket / The Platform jurisdictional decision, she sits down with FSU Council member Dane Giraud for an open exchange on what the BSA actually does, where free speech and protection from harm collide, and whether scrapping the body off the back of a single controversial ruling was good process.

It's a genuinely civil disagreement — and one of the more substantive conversations on broadcasting regulation you'll find in New Zealand right now.

They cover:
- How BSA complaints actually work — and why only ~8% are upheld
- The elasticity of "harm" and who gets to define it
- The Heather du Plessis-Allan ruling and whether counter-speech would have done more
- The Plunket / Platform jurisdictional decision and the cost-of-appeal problem
- Why years of reform consultation were shelved before the BSA was scrapped
- Online pile-ons, platform accountability, and the Mikey Sherman case
- David Harvey's voluntary-standards model — and its gaps
- Vexatious complaints, and the BSA's 2020 decision not to hear complaints about te reo Māori

Support the show

https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz