I am now legally censored from even talking about being censored
Blogger Martyn Bradbury says he’s prepared to go to jail on the principle of free speech, as an interim court decision reveals a complainant’s assertions of emotional distress over blog posts.
NZME
The good news is that I am not in prison. Yet.
I am deeply disappointed about todays Court Case that I can’t talk about.
My hope was that this appalling abuse of process would be thrown out.
It wasn’t.
I am now legally censored from even talking about being censored.
This is Free Speech in Aotearoa New Zealand 2026.
The Court case continues next week, I call on all Mainstream media to cover it
NZME, ZB, The Post and Stuff covered the story.
RNZ and TVNZ, the public broadcasters, were both missing in action.
Independent Media is more important than ever, especially in the lead up to the Election. TDB is the largest Left Wing Blog in NZ and we have been operating for 13 years now. We get zero funding g from NZ on Air and we don’t have no rich backers. If you can donate please do so here or directly into our account – 12-3065-0133561-56
Speaking Truth to Power Stuff.co.nz Steps Up
I am now legally censored from even talking about being censored
By Martyn Bradbury
4 August 2026
Stuff has said they will defy the insane court ruling against talking about the case being censored.
This is a powerful act of solidarity by fellow journalists reporters and editors at Stuff.
Special Kudos to Stuff journalist Stewart Sowman-Lund who has attached his by-line to the following report.
Stuff Group rejects demand to take down reporting on Bradbury blog dispute
Stewart Sowman-Lund
August 5, 2026
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/361016121/stuff-group-rejects-demand-take-down-reporting-bradbury-blog-dispute
… Both The Post and Stuff Digital received a takedown notice from lawyer Lynne Van, a partner at Lane Neave law firm, on Tuesday afternoon asking that reporting on the dispute be removed as it “contains information capable of identifying the original applicant”….
… A spokesperson for The Post defended the reporting: “The articles in question will not be removed.”
Lawyer Charlotte Currie responded to the takedown notice for Stuff Group – owners of both The Post and Stuff Digital – on Wednesday, saying the articles would not be removed.
“We do not accept that our reporting breaches the court’s orders, and we will not be removing it … Our reporting has not named your client or published any identifying details about [them].”
Stuff have also named the Judge who made this over-the-top totalitarian order, as Judge David Sharp.
If David Sharp dares to act on his threat to bring contempt charges against Martyn Bradbury for talking about being censored, then he would also have to bring comtempt charges Stewart Sowman-Lund and the Post and the Stuff corporation. Stuff have much bigger legal and financial resources to fight the charge, of contempt than Martyn Bradbury, which will give David Sharp pause for thought.
Judge David Sharp ordering censorship of four posts is one thing. Judge David Sharp ordering all reporting of the case to be censored is another thing. Judge David Sharp ordering all reporting that the trial had been censored, is an unprecedented act of judicial overeach.
The Thick Edge of the Wedge
If a judge can order that a case being censored can not be reported as being censored. Then every court in the land has the potential to become a secret Star Chamber.
The Fourth Estate vs. the First Estate
Stuff.co.nz and the Post’s defiant stand on principle in solidarity with Martny Bradbury provides a layer of protection to Bradbury against David Sharp carrying out his threat to bring contempt charges against Martyn Bradbury for reporting that the case has been censored. Sharp will have to go through Stuff.co.nz and the Post as well, Judge David Sharp may have bitten off more than he can chew.
While state broadcasters, RNZ and TVNZ have bent to the knee to the state, Stuff.co.nz have shown they have the intestinal fortitude and spine to stand up to the unprecedented level of double censorship imposed in the ccnsorshiip case being taken against the Daily Blog and its spublisher Martyn Bradbury.
The Post:
Stuff Group rejects demand to take down reporting on Bradbury blog dispute
Stewart Sowman-Lund
August 5, 2026
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/361056686/stuff-group-rejects-demand-take-down-reporting-bradbury-blog-dispute?
A lawyer acting for the complainant in a dispute over alleged “personal attacks” published on a popular blog has demanded media – including The Post – remove reporting that they allege breaches a court order.
But The Post’s publishers do not accept that the reporting goes against an interim ruling which prevented identifying the individual who made the complaint and has not taken down the articles covering the dispute.
Blogger Martyn Bradbury appeared in the Auckland District Court on Tuesday to defend claims that posts on his website, The Daily Blog, may have breached the Harmful Digital Communications Act……
When will the lickspittles employed at our state sponsored broadcasters grow a spine and demand that their emp[oyer make the barest mention at this unprecedented level of censorship imposed on any media organisation.
Democracy dies in silence. Honour to Stuff.co.nx for having the moral courage to stand up an unprecedented censorship unbecoming of a democratic state.
I am now legally censored from even talking about being censored
By Martyn Bradbury
Not only have you been censored you have been censored from mentioning that you have been censored?
What’s that all about?
Even in cases of extreme sexual abuse the media are allowed to report that the case has been censored to protect the identity of the victim. I have never heard of a case where even mentioning that a case has been censored, is censored.
Who made up this completely ludicrous, over-the-top censorship, of censorship decision?
Are you even able to tell us the name of that judge?
I imagine that even in totalitarian states newspapers and electronic media would be allowed to publish that judge so-and-so had ruled that some case or other had raised matters so prejucial to the protection of the state and discussed matters of such sensitivity and secrecy that revealing the working of the court would endanger state security.
But censoring, mentioning censorship, of censorship? That’s beyond totalitarian.
My God Bomber what have you done to be handled a double layor of censorship by an arm of the state?
Did you release the launch codes of the AUKUS Tier 2 nuclear submarine fleet?
Have you doxed the entire SIS and DGSE and Five Eyes workforce?
Will you now be handed a third level of censorship to prevent you mentioning, that you have been prevented from mentioning, that you have been censored from mentioning, that you have been censored?
P.S. Did RNZ and TVNZ get a heads up that they would be prevented from mentioning that a case about censorship was itself being prevented from being mentioned as being censored?
I think the BHN’s suggestion of a sweepstake to guess the identity of the complainent. is a good idea.
To take part you have to pay $10.
Send your ten bucks and your guess to the Daily Blog.
The guesses won’t be published until the identity of the complainent is finally revealed.
The correct winner, or winners will share the sweepstake, minus a cut for Martyn Bradbury’s defence fund.
RNZ and TVNZ, the public broadcasters, were both missing in action.
What possibly could account for this?
Not enough court reporters between both of them?
Was a strategic decision made, by both public broadcasters not to cover it?
Well Bomber, you and I both warned that laws like the Harmful Digital Censorship Act could bring us to a place like this. I’m sorry you’re being made the canary in the coalmine, but it does at least vindicate our concerns. I’m reminded of the case against Whale Oil, and hoping that we both remembered to reserve judgement until we had all the facts, just as we hope our political opponents will do now in your case.
Side note: I specify “political opponent” for a reason; people can disagree strongly about electoral politics and economics and religion, and still co-exist peacefully, even cooperatively, within neighbourhoods, and across the country. We don’t need to wage zerosum cold wars against our opponents in politics, as if they’re an enemy to be conquered. On the contrary, we all strengthen our own democratic rights by rigorously and consistently protecting each others’.
There has to be an overwhelmingly good reason for a news and commentary publisher not to support another who’s being censored. Secret court processes that allege … *something* … but the accused can’t even talk openly about it? That shouldn’t even be legal. Is it? Aren’t there some rights to due process that aren’t being respect there? I very much hope every newsroom in the country is paying due attention to this.
Danyl
“people can disagree strongly about electoral politics and economics and religion, and still co-exist peacefully”…I wonder, is this case about that, or is it about the way MB goes about the above..ie. the tone? Is the tone of an argument part of the free speech equation now? It would be good to see exactly what this complainant is complaining about. And did the complainant use an alias on the blog, in which case there would be no case.
Emotional distress’ over a blog post – get over it
the person complaining about “emotional distress’ needs to build a bridge and walk over it – so what, how can a blog post cause emotional distress’?
Wayne McIndoe says:
“… how can a blog post cause emotional distress’?”
By being cuttingly true.
A blog post about a corrupt or racist politician would cause emotional distress, especially if it is true
j