Key Takeaways:
- The Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT) found that Chinese-media outlet Skykiwi did not discriminate against May Moncur due to her political opinion when it deactivated her online blogging account.
- Moncur had alleged that Skykiwi was using "selective" censorship and discrimination by allowing content about Western governments and politics while removing her posts that touched on Chinese politics.
- The tribunal concluded that Skykiwi’s actions were not discriminatory, but may have breached contract law.
- Moncur’s account remains deactivated seven weeks after the ruling, despite the tribunal’s suggestion that it should be re-activated.
- The case raises concerns about censorship and free speech in online communities, particularly for Chinese New Zealanders.
Introduction to the Case
The Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT) has made a ruling in a case involving May Moncur, an Auckland forum user who was suspended from using the FML forum in 2021. Moncur had written a message suggesting that the forum’s moderation was akin to Chinese Cultural Revolution-era censorship, which was removed by Skykiwi, the company that operates the forum. Moncur took the company to the HRRT, alleging that it was using "selective" censorship and discrimination by allowing content about Western governments and politics while removing her posts that touched on Chinese politics.
The Tribunal’s Decision
The HRRT found that Skykiwi did not discriminate against Moncur due to her political opinion when it deactivated her online blogging account. The tribunal concluded that the company’s actions were not discriminatory, but may have breached contract law. The tribunal heard that Skykiwi had warned Moncur several times about her posts, and that her final post had criticized the company, saying that New Zealand should not tolerate "cultural revolutionary style behaviour". The tribunal also heard that an admin post had appeared on the same day as Moncur’s critical post, which seemed to refer to her as a "fly" that needed to be swatted. However, the tribunal did not believe that this post was a reference to Moncur, and that the company’s actions were not motivated by a desire to discriminate against her.
The Impact of the Decision
Moncur has expressed disappointment with the tribunal’s decision, saying that she believes it is discriminatory to allow overtly political posts about Western leaders and issues while censoring posts that touch on Chinese politics. She also pointed out that the company’s website allows users to post about New Zealand political issues, but censors any posts that touch on China in a negative light. Moncur believes that this inconsistent censorship is inherently discriminatory and has a chilling effect on the participation of ordinary members on the website. The case raises concerns about censorship and free speech in online communities, particularly for Chinese New Zealanders. Moncur’s account remains deactivated seven weeks after the ruling, despite the tribunal’s suggestion that it should be re-activated.
The Broader Implications
The case has broader implications for the Chinese New Zealand community, who rely on online platforms like Skykiwi to connect with each other and discuss social issues. Moncur believes that the company’s actions are having a negative impact on the community, by stifling free speech and undermining democratic engagement. The case also raises questions about the role of online platforms in regulating speech and ensuring that users are not discriminated against. The tribunal’s decision suggests that companies like Skykiwi may have a responsibility to ensure that their moderation policies are fair and consistent, and that users are not unfairly targeted or censored.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the HRRT’s decision in the case of May Moncur and Skykiwi highlights the complexities of regulating speech in online communities. While the tribunal found that Skykiwi did not discriminate against Moncur, the case raises important questions about censorship, free speech, and the role of online platforms in ensuring that users are treated fairly. The case also highlights the importance of ensuring that online communities are inclusive and welcoming to all users, regardless of their political opinions or backgrounds. As online platforms continue to play an increasingly important role in our lives, it is essential that we ensure that they are regulated in a way that promotes free speech, inclusivity, and fairness.
