Free To Speak

Douglas Brown - VPN Bans, a Banned Film and 'Trusted News'

• Free Speech Union • Season 2 • Episode 27

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 1:06:37

Erica Stanford says a VPN ban was never on the table. Barrister and Free Speech Union Council Member Douglas Brown isn't convinced. Douglas joins host Dane Giraud for a freewheeling episode on three stories that end in the same place: someone else deciding what you can see online. 

The Post reported the Government had been looking at VPN restrictions as part of its under-16 social media ban. Within hours, ACT and NZ First ruled it out and the Education Minister denied it was ever considered. But the select committee report on online harm mentions VPNs 19 times and recommends them as an area for the regulator to explore. 

Douglas explains what a VPN actually is, who relies on them, and why an under-16 ban cannot be enforced without imposing age verification on every New Zealander. Then Citizen Vigilante, the Uwe Boll film starring Armie Hammer that was refused classification in Germany. Elon Musk shared it, it topped the charts, and the Streisand effect did the rest. From Thomas Paine's Rights of Man to Life of Brian to Spycatcher, suppressing a work has always been the surest way to promote it. 

Finally, the UK's plan to force social media platforms to give prominence to approved 'trusted news' providers, including the BBC. Who decides what counts as shared and accurate facts?

Support the show

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

Welcome And What’s Coming Up

SPEAKER_00

Welcome to Free to Speak, the New Zealand Free Speech Union podcast. If you enjoy the show, subscribe for uncensored conversations and free speech news from New Zealand and beyond.

SPEAKER_04

Welcome to Free to Speak, the official podcast of the New Zealand Free Speech Union. My name is Dane Doreau. I am a council member of the Free Speech Union and your host. And joining me today is fellow council member Douglas Brown or the man with the Paho. Give us a bit of background on your new name.

SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Shubs. So I've been doing a bit of a pairing on Shubs says, and uh young Schubs has noticed my my facial hair uh and its length, uh, which is getting a bit longer. Uh not the longest it's been, I will say, but it's getting there. Uh, and uh has now started calling me the man with the paho. So um Mr. Jureau has kindly noticed that, and it seems to be sticking.

SPEAKER_04

It's a pretty it's a pretty cool name. Like I can imagine, you know, when I hear the man with the paho, I imagine like uh someone in the uh with the beard, or with like the Klinesewood poncho, you know, like yeah. That that could be on your um your inns campaign poster, actually. Maybe we should get a free speech union poncho. And instead of the man with no name, the man with the paho. The paho. The paho and the poncho. Well that guy. Well, we're not gonna be talking about um uh fashion and and facial hair. Oh, that's disappointing. Yeah, no, no. So we so this is gonna be a bit of a different sort of episode, a fun one. I mean, they're all fun, but um we sometimes we just like to talk amongst ourselves and talk around the world and all uh various topics that are happening. So we've had a busy one this week with the VPNs. Now I want to get to the bottom of that, and I want Douglas to help me because how much did Erica Stanford know? Like I that's the mystery here, but we'll get to that. Okay, there's a teaser, there's a teaser for you people. And uh the next one is Citizen Vigilante, which is the anti-migrant action film that is being banned in Europe. We're just gonna talk about film censorship and and um and and this film in particular. Obviously, I'm in the film industry, so film censorship is something I'm very interested in. And our last topic is going to be moves in the UK to alter the algorithms so that preferred news sites are given priority on YouTube and other sites. Uh, the government over there is considering forcing uh to to, you know, all in the name of combating disinformation, forcing uh various sites or uh all the sites to prioritize the BBC and other trusted news sites. And we'll get into that one too. That one is a bit scary as hell, actually.

SPEAKER_02

Well, in the shock announcement, free to speak is now a trusted site, and we are for it.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, there's every chance that's gonna happen.

SPEAKER_02

So anyway, everyone is forced to watch us every week.

SPEAKER_04

Well, let's go. But you know, our ratings aren't too bad to be real. Yeah, yeah, no, we're doing all right. They're going to skyrocket now. I think it's us. I really do think the bears. It's the beers, you know. You've got the bar, and I've got the yeah, I've got the I've got the thing that's not just coming along nicely, yes.

What A VPN Actually Does

SPEAKER_04

Yeah. So, okay, so let's start with VB VPNs, and yeah, uh, we will let's let's let's really just set it up completely.

SPEAKER_02

What is a VPN? A VPN is short for virtual private network. Uh, a virtual private network routes the connection, the traffic, the internet traffic from your digital device, be it a phone, an iPad, uh, a tablet, uh, a computer, uh, through a server uh that is not the internet service provider's server uh to the website that you want to access. Website, uh file transfer site, any particular site that you are trying to access. It obfuscates, it hides uh what you're actually uh accessing. The internet service provider simply sees that you are accessing the VPN's uh IP. The site that you're accessing only sees that you are coming from a particular uh IP, internet protocol uh address. It is the digital address that your computer or your digital device has on the internet. It's when your device uh accesses a website, uh it tells the uh website I'm coming from, and it's usually uh got a number of you know four nine, say dot you know, uh six seven two dot uh six eight one dot whatever, and it tells them that it's uh it's a New Zealand address. Uh in fact, it will bring it back uh specifically not just to your house, uh, or it will come back to your computer or to your tablet or to your phone or to your fridge um or to any number of devices within your uh within your house. If I look uh into my router at the moment, I think I'll probably find there's about 25 or 30 devices that have IPs, uh local IPs within my house. Uh and those that are able to access the internet, if they access the website, that the IP, the external IP, will be visible to the website. The internet protocol address will be visible to the website. And that can be traced back to uh through the internet service provider that I use uh to not just me, but to the actual device. And so Yep.

SPEAKER_04

And so this is a product that that is uh uh has you know it's on the market, it's been sold. I've actually um uh subscribed to a VPN in the past. I don't have one at the moment. I used to use it to uh look at news overseas and different news services that weren't really available here. It gave you, it really made the work.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, getting past geoblocking. You are using it to get past what we call geoblocking. Uh a news provider uh will say, we are only going to make these certain things available or our content available to people in our country or a particular country. YouTube has uh protections on it for some videos. You can only access some videos in some countries, and and to get past geoblocking, you will say uh what you call it spoofing. You come in and you'll access through a server on your VPN through the United States or through Mexico or through Germany or through Britain, and it will allow you to access geoblocked content in that country, and that's a very, very common feature uh for using that. Uh, in the old days, uh, when you wanted to access Netflix before it got overseas, uh, you would geo you would get past the geo blocking by using a VPN to get in uh through the United States uh servers, and that's how you'd access Netflix. Now, there are different types of VPN that you can use. It's not just about getting around uh geo blocking uh and accessing uh content that you can't access otherwise. Uh VPNs are also very, very useful for work. Uh let's say I have a laptop that I use for work, I have a work server, I can put a VPN on my uh computer that creates what we call a tunnel and has direct access from my computer straight back to my server at work, and that is uh encrypted. In other words, there's no way that others can get in there. Uh, and it is private, entirely secure. And that is my own virtual private network. It's not provided by someone else. I've created it myself, and it's entirely secure. Uh, there are uh virtual private networks which I can use for uh uh getting past things like the Great Firewall of China is popular. Uh when you're traveling, you can use it. Uh, I have a virtual private network on my phone. When I leave the trusted security of my own personal Wi-Fi, uh, my phone automatically goes to a virtual private network. Why does it do that? Well, because, for example, if I'm accessing uh uh my bank data, my banking services, uh, there is a way in which uh people with uh sufficient technical ability can intercept the data and going from my phone to the ISP and possibly uh steal the uh the login details for my banking data. Not necessarily easy, but possible. And so there are a number of ways in which I can do that, uh, where I can access uh legitimately. We're not talking about doing this for nefarious purposes. There are nefarious purposes. Piracy is a big reason to have a VPN if you want to pirate uh uh uh material, if you want to pirate movies or TV programs, music was a historically a large one, you know, the old days of lime wire uh that that we used to have, and and people used to be able to download uh uh lots and lots of music uh before people realized that uh there was uh something to be made from it.

SPEAKER_03

So let me just jump in.

SPEAKER_04

Um well, even even geo blocking, because when you sell a film, uh I've sold a couple of films in the past, and you do sell them territory by territory, right? Yes. So if you sell it to a territory and and they are playing it on their local uh networks, then you are losing money when someone gets around the geoblock. Absolutely to what you're so there is a little bit of shady stuff going on. People do use it for shady purposes, don't they?

SPEAKER_02

Absolutely. I kind of did. Well, it affects your royalties. Yeah. It affects your royalties, and that's it.

SPEAKER_04

So did Kim.com does it just quietly.

SPEAKER_02

So did Denkop Kim.com, which is why they're wanting to rectite him. Yeah, you know. Uh the question with that, of course, is you know, should he spend the rest of his life in prison uh as a result, and can he get justice in the US? I have my doubts about that, but he's not exactly the most likable of people, so there's that as well. Uh but that's that's but we can't let that get in the way. It's a bit of free speech. We can't let that get in the way. And that is exactly right, and justice should take place. Um, so VPNs play an important role, especially in security. Um, you know, they are exceptionally important. And for people in countries where there are uh um dictatorial regimes, North Korea, China, Iran, uh Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, places where internet is not free like we expect it to be. Uh they are a vital part of the internet structure so that you can uh you can access the internet without being what without worrying that you are going to be spied upon because it's really easy to spy on people from an internet service provider uh basis. We you can literally in New Zealand that you the government could literally install uh surveillance software down at your local exchange and monitor all of our software, all of our internet access quite easily. It wouldn't be difficult at all.

SPEAKER_04

Well, uh the some of the countries that you you just listed uh have banned VPNs. I I don't believe China uh has VPNs. Iran definitely would not have VPNs not legally anyway. No, not legally anyway.

Under-16 Social Media Ban Fallout

SPEAKER_04

So the reason why we're talking about VPNs is that uh there's National is looking at uh banning social media for for under 16s. And it's come up that there was talk of a VPN ban, which of course is what uh the UK wants to do to for their own social media under-16 ban. Well, under-18, I think they're even considering over there. I don't know what a mixture with them.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, it's a it's it's a ban for under 16s and a curfew for under-18s. Oi, a curfew. I don't know how they are going to manage that, no. How how do you how do you tell 17, 16, and 17-year-olds, yeah, you can have social media, but not after, you know, eight or nine o'clock at night.

SPEAKER_03

Why why is a government doing that?

SPEAKER_02

Because they're morons.

SPEAKER_04

But well, they're just creepy people. Um I mean, that's something a parent would do. I do that. I say to my son, get off the internet at 8 p.m. Not a government.

SPEAKER_02

They have they have this incredible self-belief that they can tell people what to do and people will do it. Uh and and and all the evidence it tells them they're wrong, but they still, you know, go go through believing that this is going to happen.

SPEAKER_04

Uh it's it's it's it's incredible. Uh mind-boggling. But but so anyway, so there was talk that we considered or have been considering, when I say we, the the National Party, have been considering uh the VPN ban. So talk us through what came out this week on mass. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

So it may have been a bit of a beat up, but I don't believe it was. It came out in the post Tuesday morning, um, that they'd been asking questions about it, and it sounds like in fact there was a bit of a leak uh that the that this was on the table and this was going to go to cabinet. Uh, and the the post may have jumped the gun a bit and saying, putting to Erica Stanford off Stanford's office uh on uh uh Monday night, are you going to do this? And before even waiting for an answer, they've come out and said this is what this is what she's looking at. Uh by mid-morning, uh the story had changed uh because she's come out and said no. Act and New Zealand First Together have said, huh, get real, this is not happening. And Erica Stanford is now doubling down and saying, Oh, no, no, no, this this was never going to happen, it's not on the table. Um, uh, I I don't accept that. Uh it well, I think it was. Uh, and the reason I think it was is because uh in the uh report that the uh Education and Workforce Committee did uh on the issue of hold on, I've got the title here, inquiry into the harm young New Zealanders Encounter Online and the roles that governed business and society should play in addressing the harm those harms. That that's the name of the report they did on this. Uh hell of a name. Um the the term VPN came up 19 times, to be fair, only six times in the majority part of the report, but they actively mentioned that VPNs would have to be considered because they would be a way of getting around the ban. Uh and so this was raised. What they said was, page 33, virtual private networks as a means to evade restrictions. We acknowledge there is well-founded concern that age restrictions on social media could be evaded by young people using VPNs. There is a very real risk of this in any situation where geoblocking is the primary intervention. We recommend this as an area for further exploration by the regulator. And then they say we're aware that online platforms may share our interest in limiting users' ability to use VPNs to bypass any restrictions on their platforms.

SPEAKER_04

Well, this is really politically terrible for her, isn't it? Because what the the leak, if it's a leak, uh but but even the the story shows, is that uh to make this under 16 bill work, there have there have to be broad measures that are going to affect everyone. She can't do it without them.

SPEAKER_02

No, it's impossible. Uh technically, without affecting the entire population, uh that they can't uh have an under-16 social media ban. It's impossible. And and so they're going to have to find ways to stop kids getting around it. And the only way to do that is to impinge upon everybody. Uh, that means forcing everybody to uh show their age, uh, present uh identification documents proving who they are and what their age is, uh, and potentially banning VPNs so that uh children uh can't get around uh the geoblocking uh which comes into this. Uh yeah, no, there is there are there is going to be a lot of problems for Erica Stanford uh in implementing this policy uh because it's going to be onerous on all of us.

SPEAKER_04

But but I mean she's delaying the inevitable, isn't she? Because it's like, you know, the the day the day of reckoning will come where we're going to be confronted with some something and the public is going to uh to be looking at it and going, yeah, this is a shit, this is this is endangering the whole internet for everybody.

SPEAKER_02

The problem they've got is is they're looking at the the broad polling and saying this is popular. Okay. Um Dr. David Harvey noted in a in a column he's just done that the the poll the polling suggests that 64 to 75 percent of people say, yeah, this is a good idea. But as you know, Dane, uh we at the Free Speech Union had done polling and in it and it agreed, yeah, 64 odd percent said, yeah, this is a great idea. But the moment you said, okay, this is how it gets implemented, that falls off a cliff. And suddenly nobody likes it. Uh, because the concept's a good idea. Yeah, social media can harm kids. We need to look after kids, uh, we should have some protections for them. But the moment you say, well, yeah, it's going to infringe upon your rights, it's going to have gatekeeping in there, you're going to have to show who you are, what your age is, and it may even uh affect what you can access uh and how you access it. People say, no, I don't want that. That's not right. We should do it differently. And that's what I don't think the National Party has actually uh uh considered yet. They're looking at the broad brush of this, and but they haven't looked into the detail.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, the the the thing with polls is interesting, isn't it? Because uh a friend of mine uh made a Facebook post that was talking about trans rights and saying something like 70% or 75 or 80 percent of New Zealanders agree with trans rights. Of course. And I look and I looked at it and it was like, should there be discrimination against trans people? That was the question. It wasn't should there be uh male-bodied people in female prisons, sports, should you be forced to use pronouns? All these questions, of course, are different. I've got a friend in Auckland who's an actor, and we were talking about this, and he said, Oh, what's the problem, man? Yeah, he was going on about it. See, what's a free speech problem for me? I mean, I got nothing personal against anyone, no, and and and and he said, Well, I'm not into the sport thing. I'm like, Well, then you're on the wrong side of this debate, dude, you know. So uh, I mean, the the polls when people do polls like that, some these questions really don't help them often. And and it would have been that kind of thing. You've got to dig deeper. How how do you implement this?

SPEAKER_02

And it yeah, uh, look, I mean, when it comes to polls, my favorite is still um yes prime minister, yes minister, uh or yes prime minister, when um Sir Humphrey teaches uh uh Bernard a lesson, it's all about how you ask the questions, and you can get the same person asking them different questions on the same topic, and they can come to two completely different answers while being completely internally consistent. Uh it is about how you ask them. If you say trans rights are human rights, yes, they are. Should we treat trans people the same and discriminate against them? No, we should not. Do we agree that uh social media can be harmful for kids? Of course it can in some situations, but so can text messaging, so can school. Do we ban schools? No, we don't. Why? Because then we drill down into okay, what are the actual harms? And it's when you get down into that and you actually start drilling down into what are the deeper questions and then how do we actually uh what are the effects of addressing those deeper questions? If we just said school's harmful for kids, yes, kids can get bullied at school, uh, and and that's harmful for those kids. Uh, but do we close schools? No, we don't. We address the bullying. And it's the same with social media. If there's harms on social media, and there's still questions about that, but if there's harms on social media, the question is how do we effectively address them? Is adding gatekeeping, is requiring people to show their ID and their age and uh you know forcing them to do that. Is that the answer? Uh no, no, it's not.

SPEAKER_04

This this is a big fight. It's all about uh you know who can controls communication. And it's it's yeah, I think it's gonna get quite ugly for them.

SPEAKER_02

It's gonna get it's gonna be bad because once they start saying, and and I suspect what they're going to do is they'll pass, they'll they'll try and pass the bill without telling people how they're going to do it.

SPEAKER_05

Yeah. And that's it.

SPEAKER_02

That's a danger. That's the danger. What that's what we're here for, though. Indeed. Indeed.

SPEAKER_04

So yeah.

Polls Change When Details Appear

SPEAKER_04

Let's let's move on to Citizen Vigilante. Oh my goodness. Okay, Citizen Vigilante. Okay, because this is interesting. So a film was produced by a a very schlocky German director called UA U Bowl. Is it Uwe Bowl? Uwe Boll. He's done all sorts of crazy uh films, and they're really, they're not well made. I mean, I've directed before. Directing is really, really hard. Because this is the way you've got to look at directing people. It's like it's like making a puzzle, like a jigsaw puzzle, like a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle, but with with a camera and shooting one puzzle piece at a time, and the overall image that you want to create is in your head. So, or you may have written storyboards and bits and pieces like that, but you're basically trying to create a jigsaw puzzle, a piece at a time. You're not you don't start with the big picture and then you know, cut it out. Yeah, you actually literally, so controlling tone and things like that is really, really tough. That said, as inexperienced as I am directing, I would make a better film than Uwe Bowl. I just would. I just would. He's he's not he's not a great great director. But that's by the by, he's made a film called Citizen Vigilante. It is about a um uh um a um vigil, yeah. Vigilante is a businessman. Have you seen it? I have not. Yeah, I've seen it. Certainly.

SPEAKER_02

It's a matter of time. I did consider seeing it for this podcast. I did. I really, really did. Am I yet?

SPEAKER_03

I don't think people need to. It's not.

SPEAKER_04

I mean, yeah, well, anyway, let me just set up the the story a bit more. It's it's it's a baffling film. It's baffling. But so Army Hammer, who's a cancelled actor, is sort of this is like his comeback film, sadly. But I quite like him. He's a fantastic actor. His Lone Ranger is a really underrated film. Like they they they did a big, a big budget Lone Ranger in about 214 or 215. Was that the one's Johnny Depp? Yeah, but but no one knew the IP. I mean the Lone Rangers from the 40s and the 1930s. It was I no one. But if you if you ever get your hands on it, people, it's it's a romp, you know, it's really, really good. So anyway, Army Hammer plays a um businessman very wealthy who's sick and tired of migrants in in in Europe and uh sort of you know goes out and and does a Charles Bronson on them. He's he's he's assassinating them and and and stuff like that. So that's the whole film. There's and there's really nothing else in it of much interest beyond that. Deathwish uh with Charles Bronson actually does have a story. He's an architect, he's a pacifist, he gets pulled into it. You get no journey like that. The guy starts in the place that he finishes in this one. He didn't like migrants at the start, he just liked them at the end. Like this is a no, there's no journey to be had, there's no irony, there's no twist or anything like that. But anyway, it's being banned in Germany, and I think a few other countries. Um is that is that right?

SPEAKER_02

I it was refused classification in Germany, which was an effective ban. Yeah. Um I don't know if other countries, if it was so much banned in other countries, um, but it certainly was disp uh disparaged um in that respect. Um so yeah, I can't say I didn't actually look where there was banned in other countries other than Germany.

SPEAKER_04

Uh yeah, well, uh the controversy around it, I mean it was going to be controversial anyway, but um uh Elon Musk that it was available free, yeah, which is where I saw it on on Twitter for for like uh a day or something like that. Yeah, a couple of days. A couple of days and Uri Bowl made it free. He made it free, and he made it free. And Elon Musk retweeted it, reposted it. He did it, and of course, millions of people have seen it now, yes, and it would and this is the classic Stryzen effect um in in in practice, isn't it?

SPEAKER_02

Because this is a film that doesn't deserve much attention, but it's a number one purchase on Apple Video and Amazon Prime for a while. Yeah, number one purchase.

SPEAKER_04

It yeah, it would easily be the worst film ever made that is sat in the number one spot, I would say. Like technically, it's just absolutely terrible. But the the issue, the issue with it is, and this is the whole censorship thing, and this is a theory that I'm starting to sort of cook up in my head, it is impossible, it's actually impossible to ban things outright in a democracy. Yes, it is. If you want, if you believe in censorship, you really have to say, okay, well, this is the we're ending democracy. Because any Elon Musk will retweet it or repost it. Um bootleg copies will I mean they could that could happen underground in um uh I guess Iran and places like that, but people will find a way. People there will be pockets of resistance continuously to a product like this. In fact, it will become a hotter property. It'll become a hotter property. And one of the major reasons why it is uh such a hot property is because people clearly feel that they cannot express themselves on this issue. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And this issue is, and I'm pro-immigration, but this issue, and this is this is where we got to with um uh speak up for women being banned in in in uh uh the Christchurch public library, uh over the births, deaths, and marriages changes too. This was a government policy. Migration is a government policy. We have to keep remembering that. Migration is a government policy, it's not nasty words, uh you know, it's not any it's something that in a democracy you you do have the right to talk about and question. Not in Germany.

SPEAKER_02

Not in Germany, necessarily. Not in Germany, yeah. Not in Germany, and and and the Germans have had uh a policy, uh the German uh state has had a policy for a number of years. The German term for it is multiculty, uh, multi-culture. Uh and and that is uh Angela Merkel was the the prime mover for a lot of that in her party, the CDU was the prime mover for that for a long time. Uh and and opposing it, uh, which uh the the mainstream parties didn't. Um opposing it what saw you labeled as a neo-Nazi, the alternative for Deutschland, AFD, uh, has has been labeled that. They've been spied on by the German uh uh SIS equivalent, uh German intelligence services. Uh they they they released a port report last year which had to be withdrawn very, very rapidly, saying they were basically a threat to German security because people laughed at uh basically off the face of the earth, uh, saying, You are ridiculous, these guys are politicians, they just disagree with you. Uh it there is this is this forms part of a backlash uh to the suppression of views uh that the the German mainstream politician uh class has not liked. Uh and when this happened, and when uh the the German state uh through the censorship apparatus said, no, we're not going to allow this, uh, and it may be distasteful, I don't know. It may be uh, you know, this the censorship process is not there to tell us whether something's any good. Uh and and just on that point, I'll note that Rotten Tomatoes is giving it six percent on the uh critics and 96% on the the the the the the audience. Um so that tells you something. Um but the um the fact is

Citizen Vigilante And Film Bans

SPEAKER_02

that that that when that happens, um the people do speak up, they do fight back. Uh and that's exactly what happens in these sorts of situations.

SPEAKER_04

They create they create art.

SPEAKER_02

They they do it in themselves. I mean, this has happened before, right? Um, in our lifetime, um more most recently, um the interview, of course, was was um uh had its own sort of little minor hit because um that was the Seth Rogan vehicle where they got hired to assassinate Kim Jong um ill, I think. Yeah, not Kim Jong-un. Um and Sony refused to distribute it because North Korea was leaning on him so hard.

SPEAKER_04

Well, well, there was a leak, wasn't it? There that was, yeah, yeah. Yeah, leaked and basically the officers were um uh their private correspondence was leaked, and a lot of people thought I don't know whether they got to the bottom of whether it was North Korea or not, but they were a little bit um nervous it was about that. Yeah, yeah, of course. Are we gonna get trouble for that?

SPEAKER_02

Um but you can go back. I mean, Life of Brian.

SPEAKER_04

There's in Plans look for this too. There is a wonderful, I think it's Michael Parkinson. Uh it it you'll find it on YouTube, but it's the Monty Python team uh debating Malcolm Mug Mudgridge.

SPEAKER_02

Malcolm Muggridge, yeah.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, and the archdeacon or or the or or the Anglican bishop uh possibly at at the time, I'm not quite sure. Um but uh it's it's a debate. You know, why did you why did you make this film? It was denigrated our Lord and Saviour. And you know, John Cleese and everyone is getting I mean, these guys are dusty, older priests. But it there was a sadness to it when I watched that that YouTube clip because these guys knew that their days were kind of numbered, you know, that religion was on the wane, like it will it was sliding down the hill fast and gaining momentum. And uh a film like Life of Brian, they saw as just yet another nail in the coffin. They got and there was a desperation to it and a sadness. As a younger man, I would have been like, yeah, man, stick it to them. But like as an older man looking at them and knowing what they have to lose, it's a little bit of a different um experience for me watching, which I find interesting.

SPEAKER_02

Interestingly enough, slight seg slight segue though. Uh Life O'Brien, um, the controversy made it more popular. Right? Um, and and it's genuinely funny. You know. Uh Last Temptation of Christ, the controversy last temptation of Christ, the controversy didn't really make it a lot a lot more popular. Um, and if you think about it, um Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ also aroused a lot of controversy, uh especially with its heavy, heavy Catholicism. Uh, but it it was a it was a smash hit, not a critical hit, but a smash hit, both with the Catholic community and the evangelical community. Um loved it. Not, you know, and and and it's very heavily on its Catholic uh pageantry, uh, but they just loved the fact that it was uh homage to the passion. Uh and so you know you can go both ways with that. Um and but it helps, as per citizen vigilante, it helps to have some artistic merit, you know. Um, but but Life of Brian was 1980, 79, 80. And so it and and so it was very much dependent upon um cinematic release in that respect, uh, to to have success. But there are some, and and and pre-Citizen Vigilante, and this is this is something I did want to mention, is is you know, the ability to go on the internet to have uh piracy, to have downloads via the the torrent sites, to have Elon Musk uh host it on X and allow uh Uwe Bolt to make it free. Um, if we go back to some of the more uh schlocky ones, um Cannibal Holocaust or uh Ilsa, She Wolf or the SS, which which uh I don't think have uh you will know better than I uh as to whether there's artistic merit, my view is no. Um but um they they to this day are uh cult uh classics, um, even sits on the word cult more than classic, uh, and and are still distributed, um, at least at least hand to hand uh and privately and on download sites. And so it does the the controversy does drive their popularity more than it does actually their artistic merit. You know, the mere fact that they were banned or they were uh made popular uh drives their popularity from long after uh their their release value.

SPEAKER_04

Well, I think it's like if I was a if if I was a lot younger, uh I knowing the kind of kid I was, I would have probably been I I would have probably worn a citizen vigilante t-shirt around just for the fun of it. Just to piss off old people. Absolutely. And and I th I but I think that spirit doesn't necessarily go away. It can mutate as you get older, but a lot of people will just it's a knee jerk to resist censorship.

SPEAKER_02

Can I just say I don't think that's that that attitude exists as much anymore? I don't see it. Can I I don't see it?

SPEAKER_01

What is polarization? Uh but I don't see I don't see the the no no no no let me let me finish this thought. What's polarization?

SPEAKER_04

Because here's my theory people say, oh, we need censorship because it's polarization or misinformation over there. No, yeah, other way around. Yeah, it's like we have polarization because one side of the aisle wants to ban the other guys. That's why we have it. Censorship is actually at the root of a lot of the social divisions, yeah. And the so the idea that it's uh gonna heal them is the is almost a sick joke. Yeah. And and it's gaslighting, isn't it? Really? Because you know, wokeness was a censorship project. That's what wokeness really was.

SPEAKER_03

Again, that was it was about culture and censorship.

SPEAKER_02

Yes, that's what it was about. Yeah, it's cultural Marxism. Uh and and so in that respect, it is.

SPEAKER_03

It is.

SPEAKER_02

Well, Marx for me will always be about class and economics, and it's like if you change them, if you change class to identity, you've got it in a in a nutshell. But then it's not Marx anymore, it's about identity. Of course it is.

SPEAKER_04

That no, well, the theory's still there. No, then to me call it call it Hegelian dialectic. Well, it's more far right at that point, isn't it? No, it's still lefty. If you take if you take out class and economics and you and you put race and identity instead, then to me is it's not that's not right way, is it? No. That that's far right, nativist right. It it's it's it it's interested in hierarchies, it wants hierarchies.

SPEAKER_02

Well, we'll have to think about that. Because I don't class that I don't class that as right way. I mean, I I I I go back to the original French Revolution to the French Revolution, the first thing the French Revolution, the French Revolution itself was incredibly national nationalist and nativist in its own respect. Uh so with that, um, I I I'm not one of those accept that nativist or nationalist is right wing. Uh, and I point to Sinn Fein and the Scottish National Part National Party as as prime examples of very left-wing um national uh groupings. Uh I I'm I'm not as quite as as easy with that.

SPEAKER_04

But

Why Censorship Backfires Every Time

SPEAKER_04

yeah, it's interesting that, isn't it? Because it's like uh you'll see on X quite a lot of people who go, Oh, this decade thinks that the Nazis were socialist and that. Well well, no, this is the way I would look at all of these movements. If it's if it's statist, yes, we got a problem. So to me, it it doesn't really matter if it's Stalin, who was quite nationalist, actually, compared to compared to Trotsky. That's because it's Georgian, yes. Yeah. So um so but the other thing is like like when you say, oh no, Hitler was completely illuminated.

SPEAKER_02

Anti-capitalist, collectivist, uh central planning, state control. Where's the right wing in that?

SPEAKER_04

Sorry, no, no, no, no. But the but the thing is, the thing is with with guys like that, or Gaddafi is the wildest example of a guy who's a all over the map. Yes, he was. But they're not, you know, Hitler's not making these statements, then going, oh, was that right wing enough? And then getting out a little book and going, oh, you know, no, it's whatever he thinks on the day. That's the whole point of a dictator. What they dictate is what everyone has to go with.

SPEAKER_02

Oh, we're gonna have to do it, we're gonna have to have a different conversation about this.

SPEAKER_04

Well, well, well, well, maybe we will. You know what I'm saying? So so I think I think there are far right elements to woke wokeism. There is l leftist elements. I struggle to call it progressive because to me it's not progressive, but it's a lot more anti-modernist.

SPEAKER_02

No, it's not. Yeah. Yeah, no, no. It's definitely no, you're right now, and that's a very good point. It is very, very Luddite, very Luddite. It is very anti-modernist, and this is the whole point of degrowth that they come up with. Uh, it it it uh it fetishizes uh sort of the the this oh goodness me, almost the late middle ages, uh, pre-Enlightenment. Um they want to go back to uh sort of a mixture of pre-industrial revolution, but without the enlightenment. Uh and it's it's it's astonishing that uh I don't get that.

SPEAKER_04

But even environmentalism in the 1880s was quite conservative and right wing. Oh heck yes. Yes. Uh the idea that this was uh because like the like Marx would have been about industrialization. He would have been like, let's get the factories and see I have that about me. And people uh I was on the RNZ panel, we were talking about it. It's like I'm like, mine, man, dig, dig, dig. Is it gonna is it gonna create a hundred jobs in Greymouth? If it does, I'm for it. Why? Because I'm on the left. Workers, jobs, revitalized little town. Why wouldn't I want that? I don't care about a snail.

SPEAKER_02

I don't care about something. Which they which they ended up cooking anyway. Uh I worked on I worked on that case. Oh, I actually worked on that case, believe it or not. Oh, the s the snail controversy. The snail case, yeah. I actually worked on that case. Well, could give us a little bit of snail controversy. Um oh well I worked I worked for two clients on that case. Um and and and it went on for well over a year. It was fascinating. And they actually came up to it a really good decision and a good outcome. And then in the end, they moved the snails, and um uh a lot of them, most of them, uh, were one left in an incubator, and the incubator from memory was turned up too high and they all got cooked. Wow. Um, yeah, anyway. But we've we've deviated we've deviated significantly from the fact the fact look the fact the fact is the fact is that um when people get sick of being told what to do and what to think, they will rebel. And and we get that. And and I want to come back because I mentioned life of Brian and and the interview, but I want to go back even further. Thomas Paine's the rights of men, right? And that was that was like 1790-ish. Okay. Um, and that got him, that got his publisher convicted and imprisoned. He fled the country. He went to France, uh, it was revolutionary France, 1791, 1792. He went to France, he was outlawed. We ended up in the st in the United States, he was in the United States for a while as well. Um, and it became hugely popular because of the controversy. All right, not just what he said, because he was a real firebrand, and some of the things he said were quite uh quite uh radical, like over-the-top radical, um and unreasonable and weren't necessarily that popular, but because they attempted to prosecute him, because they outlawed him, it made it more and more popular. Um even even attempts to um, for a long time, Parliament, it was prohibited to um to uh report on what happened in parliament. Uh and when finally uh the publisher of the North Britain, which is another name for Scotland, uh the publisher of the North Britain uh you know started publishing some excerpts from what happened in Parliament, they they prosecute him, just made him more popular, you know. And so there's been this right. What are you hiding? What are you hiding? Precisely, yeah, yeah. Precisely, the spy catcher affair. Remember Spycatcher in the 80s? Um and it was and it was it was a former MI5 agent. I read the book. It was it was no great shakes. Um, and and uh he was prohibited from publishing it in uh in uh the UK, so he published it in Australia, you know. Um and uh he and it was it was a success, far more successful than it deserved, because of the court case against him under the State Secrets Act. Um, it didn't tell us anything really new because uh another a journalist um called Chapman Pincher had been printing similar stuff for years, but it made him very serious successful and and he printed published you know sold millions of copies as a result. When the state tries to do this, it it generally backfires. What we call, of course, the Streisand effect, because Barbara Streisand's tried to stop pictures of her home being published, and so everybody said, I've got to have pictures of her house. I gotta look at it I've got to look at that. I've got to have pictures of that house. Um, and so as a result, that's what happens. But uh the government needs to step out, the government needs to stop, and the Germans are finding the hard way. But what we're finding is that the Europeans, especially, are doubling down on this. They're not learning. No, they're not learning, they're not learning at all. Uh, and unfortunately, the Australians are not learning uh in recent times and and their their uh response uh to the Bondi massacre has been exactly the same. Uh, we have had a lack of social cohesion, we've had uh people saying bad things, so we're gonna ban people from saying bad things, you know. If if the Germans, uh the German censorship office or film classification office had simply given Citizen Vigilante uh uh the R18 rating or R16 rating or whatever it should have been equivalent, uh, and said, there you go, it wouldn't have done nearly as well and been nearly as well publicized.

SPEAKER_03

Well, that's the other that's the other thing. It's like um sometimes uh I yeah, uh because it's because you know that a ban is just gonna make it popular, why would they do it?

SPEAKER_04

Is it because the symbolism of no, we have to be clear to our people at least, yeah. They can't stand for the they just can't help themselves. No, they can't. It's irrational. Yeah, it it doesn't make any sense. See the thing with even Brian Tarmate, right? Like Brian Tarmeky, flamboyant character, now he's on the migrant thing, uh like he'd never have the oxygen if this had been a policy treated like any other policy discussion that people had been just had been having for years. Right. Now people are gonna get worked up about certain policies or or not. I'm not I I can't pretend there's never gonna be emotion involved in it, and and some people are gonna act. Rationally, you want to shut others down and all this kind of stuff. But if we can get past ourselves and be a bit more mature about it and actually have the discussions, you then these baroque expressions of grievance that we're seeing from Atarmaki or a film like Citizen Vigilante, they just wouldn't they just wouldn't play because we'd all be talking about it anyway. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

You know what I mean? Like and and it would be mis and we'd we'd would have better policy. If you can't talk about a policy, you're not going to get the best policy, are you?

SPEAKER_04

Of course not. You're going to get what some square heads think is the best policy. And people who are on the street and have to actually live with the consequences of a policy. If they're shut out of the debate, I mean it's the policy will stink.

SPEAKER_02

It won't be good. And it won't be the popular policy, it won't be the popular policy we all agree with, or that most of us agree with. It'll be the one that the people who have control and can stop others speaking want.

SPEAKER_04

And so we walk away from the whole experience saying, well, do we really live in a democracy?

SPEAKER_02

Well, and that it's a fair question. And this is what they're having to figure out in Germany right now. This is why the AFD is rising. And if you look at uh the the breakdown in in Germany, you'll see the AFD is very, very popular in the East, in East Germany, uh, not so popular in uh West Germany, uh the old West Germany. Uh but even then, um the biggest uh uh the biggest uh uh the largest amount of harm that's been done is actually to the Christian uh social union, not to the Christian Democrats, uh, which is interesting uh because the Christian Democrats are slowly starting to say, well, maybe we actually need to be a bit more uh right wing in this. Uh and they've they can go further over because of course Christian Social Union, which is their labor, uh, don't feel able to be uh uh a bit as tough on migrants as as as the electorate may want them to be.

SPEAKER_04

So so so with all the hate speech laws they've got, and some of them, you know, people defend Germany a lot and say, well, look at look at look at their history, look at the 20th century, can you can you blame them? But yes, a far, you know, they a far right party is likely to come into power there. So did any of this work?

SPEAKER_02

Those hate speech laws existed, but those speech laws existed before the Nazis took power. But then they didn't stop the the Nazis taking power.

SPEAKER_04

Well, those ones in particular, particular though, they would have put new laws in.

SPEAKER_02

They would have been they put new laws, they put new laws in banning people from from expressing support for the Nazis. But most of the laws that the that in Germany people uh the the uh police uh are using to prosecute people existed under the Weimar Republic, uh which was which and and certainly between 1919 and about 1925-26. Oh, yeah, was was most was mostly was mostly uh left-wing sort of socialist, proto-socialist. Um, but those those those speech laws uh come from from well before the Nazi period, the Nazis exploited them to the to the hilt. Uh, and then of course Hitler ruled ruled um under the the uh Fuhrer Decree. But um, you know, there are there are uh laws against showing support for national socialism uh and and expressing support and showing national socialist symbols. But the the main laws that um are getting people, you know, laws against um um uh mocking people online, laws against uh uh uh saying things against migrants or saying things against politicians and the like, those those pre-existed the Nazis.

SPEAKER_04

Interesting.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah. Well, it and none of them are working. And none of them are working. Except they get people, except they get people's backs up. So in that case, they get people's backs up. Maybe they are working. They are working. Maybe they are working. And and you know, if if the AFD, and it's entirely possible that the next government may be an AFD CDU government, uh, they may go because the AFD has a has an interest in getting rid of them.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, yeah. And well, that would be landmark, wouldn't it? Um because you know Germany's not a small fish as far as EU is considered. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_02

It's massive, its economy is going downhill. Yeah, um, there's massive ruptions going on.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

Um, and and maybe the Cis and Vigilante thing is is part of that uh change in willingness to start addressing uh issues in society um and start having a conversation. And and that's what of course the free speech union is about. It's not about you know, is one one idea right or the other idea right? It's about we've got to have the conversation.

SPEAKER_04

Well, it's interesting that because I've all morning uh I've been watching this um UK economist, he's a far-left guy, Chloe Swabrook met him when she was Gary moron. Gary Stevenson, right? Oh my goodness, yes. Now, okay, he's a moron, but the buttons one of the reasons why I'm not an economist, so I'm not that but but so you know you're gonna probably think he is too. He thinks he is, but he's not. Well, but see, I I'm terrible with money and numbers. You you would probably be way more well, everyone is way more savvy than me. So I I listen to him and go, oh, you know, he looks like a bit of a twerp. But but to give him credit, he is interviewing some to give him credit, he he is sitting down with people on the other side of the aisle. I and people who disagree with him, yes, and they are tearing him a new asshole, right? And and it's really ugly.

SPEAKER_02

He's fighting, he doesn't. I don't think he gets sorry, I'm gonna go interrupt here. I don't think he understands that he's getting torn a new one. Yeah, I don't think he understands that. Keep going though.

SPEAKER_04

He might not understand it, but boy, is it doing us a service because we're looking at it and going, oh well, he just got absolutely owned here. We need that, we need to see people get owned. And and the reason why many people, you know, won't do the even this podcast, or because they don't want to get owned. But well, they're worried that they may own me, but but they don't they're they're they're concerned if there's any risk they won't come near it because they they must know that their ideas are brittle. So what that says to me is that he he does have conviction in what he believes. Yes, he does, and because of that, he's prepared to table his ideas with really against really smart people who disagree with him, and we we're getting this amazing service done because we're seeing him being taken apart, and we and that was always the whole point of free speech. It was always the point, you know. We need we need to kick the tires of all these ideas, these policies, these these these fads, these cultural developments that we need to be constantly kicking the tires of all that stuff.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, and you're making it you make a good point because at least and you've got to give him credit because he's willing to go up against people who disagree with him, because the people he gets his ideas from, the people he reads and who he formulates his ideas from, aren't willing to do the same thing often.

SPEAKER_04

That's right. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

And and one of the things that that I always say is look, I could be wrong. And maybe it maybe it's after uh 20 plus years working in the courts where I have to stand up and politely and and and thoughtfully and coherently with a judge listening who's making the decision, not me, put my argument and often because I'm a defense lawyer, uh, I've got the the the police or the crown and the judge against me um having a go at me and having to fight back, but do it politely uh and get used to losing, as my first boss said. You know, it's one of the first things he said to me, Douglas, get used to losing. Uh, not just because most of our clients are guilty, but easier said than done.

SPEAKER_01

Easier said than done. This is it. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

This is it. You have to get used to it. You have to do it in a way that that you know is is noble and and civil. And if you are wrong, admit it, if you aren't wrong and you get handed your rear end, go back and form a stronger, stronger argument. Now, fortunately, in the criminal sphere, we generally have the ability to appeal. And so if we do lose, we can go and and try again. Um and and and and try and have it.

SPEAKER_04

Get it right the second time, or whatever. Get it right the second time if we can.

SPEAKER_02

Sometimes that's not possible. Yeah. And and and and you know you've screwed it up. But this guy is is at least has the courage of his convictions to go out there and try and say, Yeah, look, I've got this. And he is he is, and he's getting torn apart, and he's absolutely wrong. And yeah, he's absolutely wrong. Yeah, but but but but full credit to him on that. Full credit to him.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, I wish we would do that. Yeah, you're allowed to have bad ideas.

SPEAKER_03

We're all allowed to have bad ideas.

SPEAKER_04

It's like, but you know, you gotta we they've got to be tested, and you've got to test yourself. So look, we're running out of time already, but because you know, you and I, we just just have such a great time uh together.

SPEAKER_02

Um so let's move on to the because if we do if people are wondering, um our phone calls are the same and go on for way longer than they should.

SPEAKER_04

So so let's let's look at our third topic, which is connected to a lot of

UK Plan To Boost Preferred News

SPEAKER_04

this stuff. Yeah, the idea and the HUD spa to put something like this forward. The UK is wanting to is considering forcing platforms to privilege certain news outlets and media sites to combat misinformation. So talk us through it.

SPEAKER_02

I will say I I give the the the Labour government in the UK full credit, they are way more open than the National Party is about what they're doing out and why they're doing it. Okay. They are actually explaining in full detail that this is now a step to control the media, control social media, they want to control the algorithms, they want to uh make sure that what is getting to not just under 16s, but everybody is is uh trusted, uh trusted, controlled, uh, is reliable uh and isn't misinformation, disinformation, and advances what they call media literacy and uses what they call. Um uh hold on, there's a term here, and I've got it written down here. Uh preferred, preferred. It's PSM and it's um public service media. Now, public service media, it are those media organizations who have been approved under the uh their broadcasting uh law uh as those who have a higher regulatory burden to actually create uh what they deem as impartial, and this is where Ofcom comes in, uh which is their regulator, uh impartial, supposedly impartial, meaning impartial, which you know, to paraphrase them that what they basically mean is highly partial, but highly partial from their point of view. I mean, the BBC is supposedly impartial, but there is nobody on this planet who thinks the BBC is impartial.

SPEAKER_04

Especially when it comes to Israel, Palestine, some horrendous horrendous reporting, horrendous reporting.

SPEAKER_02

Um they have been debunked time and time again. Time and time again. And and the only people who think they are impartial is the BBC. Uh, and and yet, and and so what they're going to do, but because they have the statutory role, the government has the ability to to ignore all of that and say, well, because we've said they're impartial, therefore they are impartial, and we're going to pass legislation that says that social media has to prioritize information put out by these sources. Now, there's two reasons for that. One, it's to counter misinformation and disinformation from people who we don't like uh because these guys are impartial and nobody else is. Two, um, it is for co social cohesion uh purposes. Uh three, it's to to protect democracy. Okay. Uh there's other reasons as well. It gives them control, all right? It allows them to and and and this, they're they're quite blatant about this, all right? Uh they've done they read they've they're doing a uh a um survey at the moment where the questions are basically uh if the government is going to do this, should they do it all the time or only in times of social unrest? Um I'm sorry, all the time? All times of social unrest? That's for goodness sakes. You know, should the government control your information? So they're being quite clear about this. And so they will take, they will force basically the social media organizations to do this. Um now what they're saying is it could be that they will designate those so those some of those social media organizations or or parts of them, so it might be a YouTube channel, might be designated a public service provider or media organization. Um, and it will and and and they will be given priority. In other words, uh X and Facebook and YouTube and uh any other social media organization, we forced to prioritize the content from those groups.

SPEAKER_04

So, okay, now algorithms like a good example is this morning. I looked at that economist, I watched one of his clips, and then I've been just bombarded with clips uh with this twerp all day, and I'm like, I don't I do never want to see your face again. Sorry, I mean that seems a bit mean, but uh but so is it's effective. Now would the Joe Rogans who are who are never gonna be prioritized, people people will still find them though, won't they? If they look. Will they look? Not this well, no, not necessarily. Yeah, but see see, we'd we've been talking about resistance and everything. If people know that what's coming up on their feed is what what they want you to watch, you're going to avoid that if you can, aren't you? Unless you're someone that's not political, you know, you exactly you're you're just so yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_02

There'll be the people And there you go, who are very start getting news from sources, and you you you're not going actively looking for news sources that are.

SPEAKER_04

Because how many of us are that engaged? I mean, even myself, I'm not terribly engaged in a lot of pol politics. Like I I mean, I'm engaged you are definitely. I'm engaged in in very, very niche areas, but yeah, but that doesn't mean that I can get necessarily pulled in because I I just the other thing is here's the thing, here's my media story, ma'am. I was in a band, right, when I was between our the the ages of 18 and 23. And I was a professional musician. So we we goodness me. Yeah, didn't you know that? No, I didn't. Yeah, I was a professional musician, glam rock, heavy metal band. Good on you. Um so we were in South Auckland, right, for for a while, because we were brought up there. Then we moved into the big city and we started getting around town. Now we the uh the the courier, the local paper, wanted to do a piece on us. And the uh none of us, I can't remember that it's so long ago, but only our drummer, Ralphie, could could front for them. So he would so they were gonna come around and do a little piece on Ralphie. So and he was gonna speak. That was very brave of you letting the drummer near anybody. Well, that's right. Well, the story doesn't end well for him. Um so we end up the the career comes out, we're like, oh we gotta do, you know, and and the the story was just it was just so full of they they the reporter got everything wrong and said and and talked about Ralphie uh uh playing guitar or tennis racket in front of the mirror when he was a kid. He denied he had said any of that, and and we were like, you made this about you, and he said, I really, really didn't. And of course, we didn't believe him at the time and just thought, you know, you stole our limelight and got really, really upset. But he swore that he was misrepresented. And what I took away from that was if they can misrepresent a uh a group of 17-year-olds in in Manudewa and their little garage band, what are they gonna do about with our pop with our politicians, with our social issues, with our you know so I I think mistrust is is it's not it's not necessarily cynical.

SPEAKER_03

I think it's a healthy default.

SPEAKER_02

I I I have read uh reports of court cases days in court where I have been there all day as as counsel and I have wondered if if the reporter was in the same room that I was in. And I knew that they were because I saw them there. But what the reporter wrote was n bore no resemblance to what actually happened.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah. Now, is that because two witnesses can have a very different take on things, or is it like I want my pros to hum a bit more? I think the reporter didn't understand what was going on. Didn't understand what was going on and had to present something. Yeah. Sort of went a bit absent, sort of nodded off.

SPEAKER_02

They misinterpreted they misinterpreted what was happening.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

And they wrote what they thought had been going on rather than what actually was happening. So not even bad faith. Not bad faith at all.

SPEAKER_04

No, they they they do they were doing their best, but they just weren't up to it. Yeah. Yeah.

unknown

Yeah.

SPEAKER_04

And that's the problem with the news media. Well, well, it's all about emphasis. It's all about emphasis, you know, and interpretation. Yeah.

unknown

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

And when the government starts saying we prefer these new this news media to that news media, and we get this, you know. The editor of stuff doing a podcast the other day saying, Oh, you know, people should be preferring, you know, the the legacy media. Uh it's like, well, why? Well, who was that? Yeah. Um, uh, what's her name? Um who runs staff? No, the owner. The owner. Uh uh Shaborn is it's Shaborn, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Siobhan voucher. Um, you know, saying, yeah, people should be putting more because we've got the experience, we've we've got the the um the knowledge, you know, uh, we've got the the uh uh good faith. But the fact is that everybody makes mistakes. Um everybody has an agenda, everybody has their own, filters everything through their own thoughts, uh, and a good spread of media is important.

SPEAKER_03

Well, see, see, that's interesting because like I'm I'm a documentary maker.

SPEAKER_04

Sinead, sinead about it. Sinead, sineid, yeah. Um I'm a documentary maker, I make documentary. Uh I'm very experienced now. I've been doing it for like 18, 20 years. I've made documentary series, I've done one-off documentaries for NZ on Air and all sorts of things. I would never say people should really watch my documentaries because I know what I'm doing. That kid that made the documentary, uh, don't watch his documentary. You should really be watching my one. Uh it's it's factual content. I wouldn't think that. I'd think, well, I made a documentary and he made a documentary, and it's good because now there are two documentaries, and you can look at my one, and you can look at his one, and you can sort of make up your own mind. We're gonna have very different takes on it, and that's it. I I the the idea that I I think my voice should be prioritized and in the factual space is um I find just obnoxious. I'd never try to do that to people.

SPEAKER_02

Well, here's the UK government, right? Listen to this. A strong, trusted media and information ecosystem underpins a healthy democracy. Okay, sure. The democratic role of the media rests on its ability to provide reliable and accessible information, ensuring that diverse perspectives can be heard. Here we go. Citizens cannot easily make free and informed choices without a media based on shared and accurate facts. The government will therefore explore legislative options to establish a prominence regime specifically for trustworthy news content on social media, which is linked to but distinct to the wider prominence regime for PSM content. Citizens cannot easily make free and informed choices without a media based on shared and accurate facts. But the government

Media Trust And Closing Thoughts

SPEAKER_02

is the one, the UK government is the one that's going to determine who has the shared and accurate facts. We're back, we're back to the the the this the podium of truth.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, that's exactly what it is. And you know, yeah, we are, and I I don't think it'll fly. But but look, we'll I'm gonna wrap this up because this is gonna be one of the most epic podcasts that we've we've we've um good luck, good luck with your editing. Yeah. It'll be right. Oh, I'm gonna try to leave it all in, you know. I think we we we did some good work here. So um I've enjoyed it. Yeah, no, I I've had had a great time. Okay, well, fantastic. Douglas, we'll we'll we'll update you all on how some of these topics are are going. We might do a few more of these because as much as I love having um experts and other guests and um people outside of the uh the union to to to come on and share their thoughts and expertise, it's always good just to have these sort of free, um, what do you call it, freewheeling conversations as well. And um I know that I always love listening to podcasts like that, so I might not make a few, you know. But yeah, okay. Well, uh um thanks uh Douglas and we'll yeah, we'll speak again soon.

SPEAKER_02

It's been fun.

SPEAKER_00

Thank you for listening to Free to Speak. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others. We release new episodes regularly, and subscribing is the easiest way to stay up to date. If you have any questions, feedback, or suggestions, you can contact us at podcast at fsu.nz. If you want to find out more about the New Zealand Free Speech Union, visit fsu.nz.