Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm shouldn’t an advisory board to the PM on censoring the internet require some academics and experts on civil rights and freedom of speech?


This now…

…so Hoots asked who was on the advisory board advising the Prime Minister on censoring the Internet, and the list is bewildering

…Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm shouldn’t an advisory board to the Prime Minister on censoring the internet require some academics and experts on civil rights and freedom of speech?

A couple of tech people, a lawyer, industry interests, corporate media interests and Lizzie Marvelly???



TDB Recommends

Now Lizzie is a national treasure. Who doesn’t love her men are terrible columns? And as someone who has faced her fair share of internet abuse, one could argue that she is a perfect advisor.

H-o-w-e-v-e-r some might feel from her past comments and statements that she would have no problem banning vast amounts of speech. Some might suggest her addition to a panel tasked with advising the Prime Minister on censoring the internet is maybe leading in one direction without any academic or civil rights counter voices.


Maybe this is just half the panel and there’s another half missing?


Because this has the look of a panel of vegans judging a meat pie competition.





  1. If they censor the internet in NZ, I’m getting an overseas VPN account ASAP. The idea of censoring public internet goes directly against its very aspiration – i.e. freedom of information – this is so fucking Orwellian it beggars belief. If this goes through Labour won’t be getting my vote next election or any henceforth (not that I was planning on voting again anyway).

  2. And where are the international law experts? Should one not have included senior legal experts from one or two of our leading law faculties at universities? We are facing questions and challenges that are not limited to what happens in NZ Inc, but so many social media platforms and services have their servers based in the US and elsewhere.

    There are major legal implications involved re any steps or recommendations that may come out of that Paris meeting.

    Yet I see NO legal advisors going with the PM.

    And I doubt that the US will be much represented by anyone from their federal government, as Trump won’t be much interested anyway.

    We cannot influence what happens in the US and in some other legal and geographical areas on this planet, so are we simply going to censor what comes out of cables and satellites, and what goes back, or what is going on in their minds?

    I suspect it will simply be another grand talking event, with little in the way of an outcome, simply a venue for a few ‘leaders’ to show off and talk smart words meaning little.

    • The social media companies are amenable to a regulatory regime or code code of practice that applies to them.

      The real issue will be with ISP’s blocking sites in breach.

      Given Trump, this will be about the committment of American corporates and the practice of ISP’s around the rest of the world.

      • Probably because the Government are deliberately keeping things secret until the last minute.

        It’s really draining how every few years, the government decide to do another iteration of “censorship in the guise of copyright protection” or try to do some sort of bill but it gets flogged down by business companies and their greedy interests. You think by now they’d just wise up to the entire idea of messing with the internet, especially considering the massive stink that was raised over Net Neutrality. Can there be at least one government that is given some sort of copyright protection law / trade deal and going “NOOOOOOOOOOOPE!” the moment the words “copyright infringement” and “internet” are in the same paragraph?

  3. If this were a hate speech law advisory group the make-up would be a lot different.

    This is just the group one would form before the Paris meet, and looks like one associated with the take down notice implementation regime for social media the Paris meet will try to agree on (inciting violence, promotion of violence glorification of violence etc).

    The Paris meet is narrowly focused and does not include hate speech law.

  4. What are you all worried about?

    If this Government sticks to form it will do what it did with all the other advisory groups it has run.

    It will simply ignore the findings…

  5. For those who want a reminder of the material that could be subject to censorship, here is a link to Iraqis being gunned down by an ugly, smelly psychopath with weapons built in Britain, France and America (no not the mosque shootings, the video evidence revealed by Chelsea Manning):

    Jacinda please wear your scarf on your trip abroad on behalf of the million Iraqis murdered by the ‘civilised’ west, and for the many others including Yemenis currently being bombed with French made weapons of mass destruction.

  6. Reading Lizzie Marvelly’s work is like performing autofellatio. You know you shouldn’t do it, and you will never admit to it, but people can lapse. And when you are finished, you are left disappointed with yourself and with a bad taste in the mouth.

  7. Are you surprised? Jacinda has proven time and time again that she is outsourcing this entire govt, the only thing she won’t outsource is the photo opportunities.

    She only had time for a one day visit to China, one of most important export markets, yet will probably be away for a week for this Social Media Conference, which everyone knows already will achieve a few catch phrases, a few lovely photos and bugger all else

  8. The PM should get rid of all advisory boards, working parties and consultation groups and replace them with Matthew Hooton and Mike Hosking. They know everything that is best for us and how it can be achieved.

  9. Don’t advise Jacinda to wear a scarf in France, they are banned there. Ironic that she would break their law while getting cosy with Muslims. That might be good for a few more headlines (no pun intended)

Comments are closed.