David Seymour's posts raise questions about what's OK to say online
Deputy Prime Minister and ACT Party leader David Seymour says he is being "playful" and having "fun" with his "Victim of the Day" social media posts, targeting opponents of his Regulatory Standards Bill. Massey University lecturer Kevin Veale takes a look at when a joke isn't a joke.
But the posts – which have singled out academics and MPs who have criticised or made select committee submissions against the bill, accusing them of suffering from "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome" – have now led to at least two official complaints to Cabinet.
Wellington City mayor Tory Whanau has alleged they amounted to "online harassment and intimidation" against academics and were in breach of the Cabinet Manual rules for ministers. According to the manual, ministers should behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional.
Academic Anne Salmond, one of those targeted by the posts, has also alleged Seymour breached the behaviour standards set out by the manual. According to Salmond:
ADVERTISEMENT
This "Victim of the Day" campaign does not match this description. It is unethical, unprofessional and potentially dangerous to those targeted. Debate is fine, online incitements are not.
When is a joke not a joke?
Seymour's claim he was being "playful" while using his platform to criticise individuals follows a pattern of targeting critics while deflecting criticism of his own behaviour.
For example, in 2022 Seymour demanded an apology from Māori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi, after Waititi earlier joked about poisoning Seymour with karaka berries. At the time, Seymour said:
"I'm genuinely concerned that the next step is that some slightly more radical person doesn't think it's a joke."
Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. (Source: 1News)
But the same year, Seymour defended Tauranga by-election candidate Cameron Luxton's joke that the city's commission chair Anne Tolley was like Marie Antoinette and should be beheaded.
ADVERTISEMENT
In 2023, Seymour joked about abolishing the Ministry of Pacific Peoples: In my fantasy, we'd send a guy called Guy Fawkes in there and it'd be all over, but we'll probably have to have a more formal approach than that.
Māori researcher and advocate Tina Ngata criticised Seymour's argument that he was joking:
Calling it a joke does not make it any less white-supremacist. What it does is point to the fact that in David Seymour's mind, violence against Pacific peoples is so normalised, that he can make a joke out of it […] but he's not any person is he? He is a politician, a leader of a political party, with a significant platform and the means and opportunities to advance that normalised violence into policy and legislation.
Designed to silence
An analysis of Seymour's recent social media posts by researcher Sanjana Hattotuwa at the Disinformation Project has argued they have the potential to lead to online harassment, saying they are: "Designed to silence opposition to the controversial Regulatory Standards Bill whilst maintaining plausible deniability about the resulting harassment, harms and hate."
The "Victims of the Day" posts about Anne Salmond and former Green leader Metiria Turei were textbook examples of "technology-facilitated gender-based violence and online misogyny", Hattotuwa argued. And the use of the term "derangement" framed academic criticism as a mental disorder – undermining expertise.
As my own research shows, online harassment and violent rhetoric can raise the chances of real-world violence.
ADVERTISEMENT
Since the early 2000s, researchers have used the term "stochastic terrorism" to describe a way of indirectly threatening people. Nobody is specifically told "harm these people", so the person putting them at risk has plausible deniability.
Seymour is already aware of these dynamics, as shown by his demand for an apology from Waititi over the karaka berry poisoning "joke".
Free speech for who?
Seymour and ACT have long presented themselves as champions of free speech:
Freedom of expression is one of the most important values our society has. We can only solve our most pressing problems in an open society in which free thought and open enquiry are encouraged.
By going after critics of the Regulatory Standards Bill, Seymour may only be ridiculing speech he does not like. But he has taken things further in the past.
In 2023, he criticised poet Tusiata Avia for her poem "Savage Coloniser Pantoum", which Seymour said was racist and would incite racially motivated violence. He made demands that the government withdraw NZ$107,280 in taxpayer money from the 2023 Auckland Arts Festival in response.
ADVERTISEMENT
ACT list MP Todd Stephenson also threatened to remove Creative NZ funding after Avia received a Prime Minister's Award for Literary Achievement. Avia said she received death threats after ACT's criticism of her work.
ACT MP Todd Stephenson. (Source: Q and A)
The more serious purpose of saying something contentious is "just a joke" is to portray those who disagree as humourless and not deserving to be taken seriously.
ACT's "Victim of the Day" campaign does something similar in attempting to discredit serious critics of the Regulatory Standards Bill by mocking them.
But in the end, we have to be alert to the potential political double standard: harmless jokes for me, but not for you. Dangerous threats from you, but not from me.
Author: Kevin Veale is a Senior Lecturer in Media Studies, part of the Digital Cultures Laboratory in the School of Humanities, Media, and Creative Communication at Massey University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence.
ADVERTISEMENT
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
5 hours ago
- 1News
David Seymour's posts raise questions about what's OK to say online
Deputy Prime Minister and ACT Party leader David Seymour says he is being "playful" and having "fun" with his "Victim of the Day" social media posts, targeting opponents of his Regulatory Standards Bill. Massey University lecturer Kevin Veale takes a look at when a joke isn't a joke. But the posts – which have singled out academics and MPs who have criticised or made select committee submissions against the bill, accusing them of suffering from "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome" – have now led to at least two official complaints to Cabinet. Wellington City mayor Tory Whanau has alleged they amounted to "online harassment and intimidation" against academics and were in breach of the Cabinet Manual rules for ministers. According to the manual, ministers should behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional. Academic Anne Salmond, one of those targeted by the posts, has also alleged Seymour breached the behaviour standards set out by the manual. According to Salmond: ADVERTISEMENT This "Victim of the Day" campaign does not match this description. It is unethical, unprofessional and potentially dangerous to those targeted. Debate is fine, online incitements are not. When is a joke not a joke? Seymour's claim he was being "playful" while using his platform to criticise individuals follows a pattern of targeting critics while deflecting criticism of his own behaviour. For example, in 2022 Seymour demanded an apology from Māori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi, after Waititi earlier joked about poisoning Seymour with karaka berries. At the time, Seymour said: "I'm genuinely concerned that the next step is that some slightly more radical person doesn't think it's a joke." Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. (Source: 1News) But the same year, Seymour defended Tauranga by-election candidate Cameron Luxton's joke that the city's commission chair Anne Tolley was like Marie Antoinette and should be beheaded. ADVERTISEMENT In 2023, Seymour joked about abolishing the Ministry of Pacific Peoples: In my fantasy, we'd send a guy called Guy Fawkes in there and it'd be all over, but we'll probably have to have a more formal approach than that. Māori researcher and advocate Tina Ngata criticised Seymour's argument that he was joking: Calling it a joke does not make it any less white-supremacist. What it does is point to the fact that in David Seymour's mind, violence against Pacific peoples is so normalised, that he can make a joke out of it […] but he's not any person is he? He is a politician, a leader of a political party, with a significant platform and the means and opportunities to advance that normalised violence into policy and legislation. Designed to silence An analysis of Seymour's recent social media posts by researcher Sanjana Hattotuwa at the Disinformation Project has argued they have the potential to lead to online harassment, saying they are: "Designed to silence opposition to the controversial Regulatory Standards Bill whilst maintaining plausible deniability about the resulting harassment, harms and hate." The "Victims of the Day" posts about Anne Salmond and former Green leader Metiria Turei were textbook examples of "technology-facilitated gender-based violence and online misogyny", Hattotuwa argued. And the use of the term "derangement" framed academic criticism as a mental disorder – undermining expertise. As my own research shows, online harassment and violent rhetoric can raise the chances of real-world violence. ADVERTISEMENT Since the early 2000s, researchers have used the term "stochastic terrorism" to describe a way of indirectly threatening people. Nobody is specifically told "harm these people", so the person putting them at risk has plausible deniability. Seymour is already aware of these dynamics, as shown by his demand for an apology from Waititi over the karaka berry poisoning "joke". Free speech for who? Seymour and ACT have long presented themselves as champions of free speech: Freedom of expression is one of the most important values our society has. We can only solve our most pressing problems in an open society in which free thought and open enquiry are encouraged. By going after critics of the Regulatory Standards Bill, Seymour may only be ridiculing speech he does not like. But he has taken things further in the past. In 2023, he criticised poet Tusiata Avia for her poem "Savage Coloniser Pantoum", which Seymour said was racist and would incite racially motivated violence. He made demands that the government withdraw NZ$107,280 in taxpayer money from the 2023 Auckland Arts Festival in response. ADVERTISEMENT ACT list MP Todd Stephenson also threatened to remove Creative NZ funding after Avia received a Prime Minister's Award for Literary Achievement. Avia said she received death threats after ACT's criticism of her work. ACT MP Todd Stephenson. (Source: Q and A) The more serious purpose of saying something contentious is "just a joke" is to portray those who disagree as humourless and not deserving to be taken seriously. ACT's "Victim of the Day" campaign does something similar in attempting to discredit serious critics of the Regulatory Standards Bill by mocking them. But in the end, we have to be alert to the potential political double standard: harmless jokes for me, but not for you. Dangerous threats from you, but not from me. Author: Kevin Veale is a Senior Lecturer in Media Studies, part of the Digital Cultures Laboratory in the School of Humanities, Media, and Creative Communication at Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. ADVERTISEMENT
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Government Cuts Off Public Voice On Controversial Bill
Te Pāti Māori condemns the Government's decision to restrict oral submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill to just 30 hours, calling it a deliberate move to shut down dissent. 'This is not a process. It's a purge. The Government is pushing a dangerous law and silencing those who would challenge it' said Te Pāti Māori Co-leader Rawiri Waititi. Despite repeated system failures and hundreds still waiting to be heard, Ministers have refused to extend the deadline. Māori voices, tangata tiriti, constitutional experts, legal academics, unions, and community advocates are being locked out. 'The Crown never intended to listen. They've built a submission process designed to collapse under pressure and it did. Now they're cutting the cord' said Co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. 'The Regulatory Standards Bill hands sweeping power to unelected officials and opens the door for corporate veto over worker protections, environmental safeguards, and Te Tiriti rights.' 'This is the machinery of suppression dressed as reform. Thirty hours isn't public consultation it's an alibi' said Waititi. Te Pāti Māori is demanding an immediate extension to the submission timeframe and guarantees that every voice has the right to be heard. 'We will fight this Bill in Parliament, in the courts, and in our communities' said Waititi. 'A government that shuts its ears is not fit to govern.'
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Regulatory Standards Bill: 30 hours allocated for public submissions on Act Party leader's bill
David Seymour also hit out at online campaigns denouncing the bill. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii ACT Party Leader David Seymour is defending the Regulatory Standards Bill getting only 30 hours of public submissions allocated. Te Ao Māori News has reported the Finance and Expenditure Committee made the decision to allocated a maximum of 30 hours for public submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill. Submission on the bill closed on Monday, which has been introduced to Parliament in various forms on three separate occasions; first in 2006, then 2011 and 2021. Speaking to media, Seymour said the bill was "probably the most consulted on bill this century" given it would be the bill's fourth time through the house. But, Labour's Regulation spokesperson Duncan Webb said it was the "most rejected bill we've ever seen" and Seymour wanted to "slip it through under the radar". Seymour said the point of select committee was to get information to the committee so they could write better a bill, not a "referendum". "There's never been a bill that has had more consultation, more study, more debates, more deliberation this century than the Regulatory Standards Bill," Seymour said. "If people really believe that 30 hours is not enough time to hear all valid views about it, then I don't think they're taking it seriously." The ACT leader also hit out at online campaigns denouncing the bill and providing guides on how to make a submission - particularly from Greenpeace. "Let's be honest, most of these people who have submitted have gone and clicked on a series of false statements put out by the likes of Greenpeace, and that's all they've done," Seymour said. "These are not people that have read the bill or have something to say about it. So, if the idea is that because basically, Greenpeace ran an email recruitment campaign, there should be more listening, I don't think that's true." In response, Greenpeace spokesperson Gen Toop said Seymour comments were a "pathetic attempt" to "delegitimise" opposition to the bill. "Seymour has gone from calling people bots to smearing academics , and now he's trying to sideline people who have turned to trusted civil society organisations like Greenpeace to assist them in having their voices heard," Toop said. Toop said it was a "travesty" that there would only be 30 hours for people to be heard in by Select Committee and the bill would insert "far-right ideology" into the law making process. "Everyone deserves to have their voices heard on this bill, whether they had help with their submission or not," Toop said. Opponents could be summed up as "never have so many, been riled up, by so few, over so little substance," Seymour said. "I don't believe there's ever been a bill in this Parliament where every single written submission has been heard. A lot of people make written submissions and they ask not to be heard. That's normal." Seymour said. Duncan Webb. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Labour's Duncan Webb said the bill had so far been "rejected every time" and Seymour did not want the bill to go through a full process. "He wants to slip it through under the radar. It's ridiculous. He's got a truncated select committee process. It should be heard fully. There are thousands of people who want to be heard," Webb said. "I like to think we live in a democracy where we give as many people as much voice as we can." Webb said there would be too many submission to go through the process "indefinitely" but 30 hours was "derisory" and "insulting". "It's undermining of people having a decent voice." Asked how long public submission should go for, Webb said 100 hours for the Fast Track Bill and 80 for the Treaty Principles Bill was an "indication". Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
