NPBHS backtracks on their apology, and InternetNZ censors 'harmful' comments

I have two significant developments to share with you:

1️⃣ New Plymouth Boys' High School reneges on their apology to Oliver.

2️⃣ InternetNZ censors some of its members comments to prevent 'harm'.

Significant developments to Oliver's story

On Monday night, I shared the great news on the outcome of the mediation with New Plymouth Boys' High School where we supported student Oliver Jull (details here). But you won't believe what happened next.

The ink was not even dry on the settlement agreement when the school backtracked on the apology they made to Oliver. We believe they have breached the settlement agreement.

Under that agreement, the school authorised publication of the following statement: “New Plymouth Boys’ High School acknowledges that Oliver Jull was excluded from the 2024 speech competition finals because of the content of his speech, and apologises for that and for the distress that it has caused.”

However in comments in national media, Headmaster Sam Moore said, “the school stands by the decision it made” to exclude Oliver, claimed it “has not breached the Human Rights Act”, and framed its apology as being only for “distress”.

We think that public comment is inconsistent with the acknowledgement and apology recorded in the settlement!

The Julls asked the school to remedy this within 24 hours. Instead, New Plymouth Boys’ High School denied they breached the agreement and responded only after the deadline.

We believe this conduct is a breach. They deny it. You be the judge. Sorry, or not sorry?

It appears to me that they’ve undermined their own apology, reneged on its settlement, and let Oliver down once again.

We'll continue to hold the school to account and support Oliver.

Did you catch mainstream coverage of Oliver's story this week? It was told in The Herald, Stuff, and The Post.

And of course Sean Plunket interviewed Oliver and myself, too, noting that being associated with the story was one of the proudest moments of his life. 😊

‘Harmful’ comments censored by InternetNZ, confirms our warnings

After backlash to feedback included in InternetNZ’s recent Members’ Survey report, InternetNZ has withdrawn the report, removing particular comments before republishing. This flies in the face of its members’ rights to speak and listen and is exactly what we were concerned about when campaigning against InternetNZ’s recent censorial constitutional changes! 🤦‍♀️

Deleting criticism doesn’t protect members from ‘harm’ – it discredits the organisation, weakens trust, and undermines the intelligence of its members. Are InternetNZ members not trusted to think for themselves?

As one of our team members tactfully put it, "Is InternetNZ a million-dollar domain manager, or a cyber-childcare centre tasked with soothing the tantrums of a few censorial critics?" 😂

Absolutely, many will find some of the members’ comments in the survey report offensive, but InternetNZ is not the internet lord who determines who gets to read what. If members disagree with the comments, they can call them out and provide counter perspectives. But calling for particular comments to be removed?

InternetNZ has bowed to the bullies and induced the Streisand Effect – ensuring the very comments they wanted hidden have now attracted even more attention! 🔍

As Jonathan Rauch says, ‘Minorities are always better off in a society that protects 'hate speech' than in a society that protects us from hate speech.’

Free speech enables others to freely and publicly advertise what they think. We each get to choose whether we engage or not. Why would you want someone else to determine that for you?

When we first exposed InternetNZ’s recent changes that could limit online speech, opponents told us to ‘stay in our lane’, claimed InternetNZ had no issues, and that the Free Speech Union was spreading ‘misinformation’. 

If InternetNZ wanted to prove our concerns were wrong, they missed an opportunity. InternetNZ’s board and management do not have to agree with the views of its members to publish the results of its survey. 

InternetNZ claimed ‘we will continue to welcome members with a range of views’. But InternetNZ can’t have its cake and eat it too. 🍰 Censoring voices you do not like is not being ‘inclusive’. 

Our campaign against InternetNZ’s recent moves is not one and done. We significantly increased their membership with hundreds of free speech advocates like yourself, and secured a strong free speech advocate for their board – Jonathan Ayling.

InternetNZ is simply confirming our predictions. This is just the beginning of our campaign to ensure InternetNZ upholds the speech rights of all Kiwis online. We’re not backing down.

It's been another big week, but I am quickly realising that's not out of the ordinary around here! Thanks for backing us every step of the way. Together, we're keeping the would-be-censors at bay!

Have a great weekend.

Jillaine Heather | Chief Executive