Benjamin Doyle’s trial by social media is exactly what Nicky Hager warned us about

When political tempers flare online, the line between principled critique and partisan pile-on can blur in an instant.

OPINION: That dynamic played out in my posts on X (formerly Twitter) where I pushed back against what I saw as a “character assassination” campaign targeting Green MP Benjamin Doyle. Just as clearly, I rejected any suggestion that I was defending Doyle. A central point that some chose to ignore.

Advertisement
    
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Image: Nicky Hager: Dirty Politics book launch, Unity Books, Wellington - August 13, 2014. Approximately 300 people attended the event - (Supplied / Scoop Newswire)

Calling out “dirty politics” referencing Nicky Hager

My core argument is straightforward: examine conduct, not conjure allegations. I accused several high-profile figures on X (formerly Twitter) of “twisting facts” and “playing dirty politics” by amplifying unverified claims about Doyle’s past social-media posts and private life. That’s not to question the fact that the posts were controversial. In my view, the behaviour of attacking a person’s character through social media outrage and incitement, without first going to the police and awaiting conclusion of investigation, is less about accountability and more about weaponising outrage for political gain. I won’t be naming those who are responsible, I’m sure they will read this.

I focused especially on comparisons that likened Doyle to notorious sexual offenders. These are comparisons I believe are inflammatory and dangerously misleading but the controversy still stands and I agree with the public about that. When posts are taken out of context and presented without evidence, they risk crossing into defamation. For example, accusing someone of being a “nonce” without substantiated proof isn’t exposing wrongdoing, it’s defaming them.

Advertisement
    
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

This kind of orchestrated online vitriol is not new. In fact, it echoes the very playbook exposed in Nicky Hager’s 2014 investigative book Dirty Politics: How attack politics is poisoning New Zealand’s political environment. Hager’s work uncovered how personal attacks, misinformation, and anonymous online smear campaigns were deliberately used to manipulate public perception and discredit political opponents.

What we’re seeing is a continuation of that same toxic rhetoric updated for today’s platforms, but no less dangerous in its intent or effect.

Image: Green MP Benjamin Doyle speaks publicly in wake of death threats over social media posts - New Zealand Herald (livestream Apr 9, 2025)

Free speech, meet defamation law

I fully support robust debate. But I’ve also warned that online anonymity does not equal legal immunity. In my posts on X, I pointed out that digital footprints can be traced, and that courts have the ability to unmask anonymous users if a defamation case proceeds. If posts are timed to sway public opinion ahead of an election, as I suggested, they could even trigger scrutiny under New Zealand’s electoral-advertising rules. But that was mostly a speculative view.

Beyond the legalities, I argued that the real damage of a smear campaign against an MP from the Greens is cultural unbinding. I cited the torrent of abuse, including death threats, that Doyle reportedly said he faced since allegations began circulating of his controversial online social media activities.

“The vast majority of New Zealanders will not tolerate violent and malicious rhetoric in our country,” Doyle said at a press conference.

Advertisement
    
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Smear tactics erode public trust of the particular individuals who started it and feed a “culture war of hate and division” imported from abroad. I echoed these types of sentiments on X, urging critics to pause before reposting incendiary claims.

“Emotional rhetoric doesn’t replace facts… Actions have consequences. No amount of hiding will change that.”

Image: Screenshot of a social media exchange between a user (redacted for legal purposes) and Samuel Hudson (@foundersam) posted on April 5, 2025, captured from the X (formerly Twitter) platform. The post discusses a response regarding Benjamin Doyle and emphasises legal due process, facts, and avoiding political point-scoring.

Neither ally nor adversary

Throughout my posts on X, I repeatedly emphasised that I have no personal relationship with Doyle, nor any political stake in his future. My interest lies in upholding due process and calling out the misuse of online platforms to spread harmful or misleading content. Especially when it risks inciting outrage based on incomplete or distorted information. “I simply posted the truth, in the law and accountability,” I wrote. “I haven’t taken any sides.”

That insistence on neutrality may not shield me from backlash in today’s polarised climate because it appears X is a dumpster fire. Yet my commentary highlights an uncomfortable reality: in an era when misinformation spreads at the speed of a share button, refusing to “pick a side” can itself become a radical act.

Advertisement
    
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Whether readers see my stance as principled or inconvenient likely depends on their political leanings. But the challenge I pose remains: to interrogate evidence before indulging outrage, and to recognise the real-world consequences of online discourse. That’s where the true debate over free speech and political accountability lives today.

Support Brief Banner

Keep independent journalism going.

We are independent and committed to bringing authentic reporting to the people.

thisquality is built for the people and powered by their support. People like you reading this free article help us remain a strong and independent platform within New Zealand's media landscape.

I'd like to donate

About thisquality

Advertisement

Advertisement Why this ad? Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉