Matthew Horncastle’s billboard ‘free speech’ whinge is not censorship, it is election law
Image: Property Developer Matthew Horncastle posted a photo of himself giving a thumbs-up in front of a digital billboard carrying a political message. (Supplied / Facebook / Matthew Horncastle)
Meh, I’ve got to say, I’m a bit tired of people like this guy. I reckon it’s pretty rich when wealthy people like him complain about being referred to the police over a minor compliance issue when working-class Kiwis are constantly told to jump through hoops to access basic services. It’s all about who you are and who you know, I suppose.
You’ve got a point, Taylor, but I reckon you’d get a different response from me if I was a wealthy property developer facing the same music. Maybe we should all just wear the “I’m with the man in charge” badge on our lapels when election time rolls around so everyone knows we’re not a threat to democracy.
I reckon we can makes some pretty valid points about his case and free speech he so preciously endeavours. If a digital billboard just displays some bloke’s opinion, then yeah, he can be right to express himself that hasn’t been taken away. However, the key thing here is whether the billboard complied with the rules around election advertising. It’s also pretty funny how some people freak out when they’re deep in the trough full of moolah. I’m not saying he doesn’t have the right to put up a billboard, but he needs to understand what those rules are and why they’re in place.
The rules are in place for a reason
It seems like the problem here is more about the rules around election advertising rather than free speech itself, but I’m a bit confused about the whole thing. Can you explain again what specifically was wrong with the promoter statement on Horncastle’s billboard that led to him being referred to the police?
In the case of his billboard blunder the commission’s complaint was about transparency and proper disclosure to voters, not suppressing free speech!
Sir or Madam,
I must say he appears to be crying foul over a simple case of a non-compliant promotional statement. What really troubles me is that he has framed this issue as an attack on free speech ha ha.
Is is reasonable to be transparent about who is behind them. I would have thought that was a basic requirement of democracy. The fact that Mr Horncastle claims he was not aware of the rules because the emails went to his junk folder only means one thing: to highlight the fact that he was probably trying to fly under the radar in the first place.
I gotta say, Horncastle’s cringe whinge about free speech is getting old. It’s not censorship when the regulator says you’ve gotta follow the rules. Horncastle’s all about how he’s being targeted for his opinions, but the issue was with how he presented them. Not whether he can have an opinion, but whether he’s being transparent about who’s behind the billboard. Newsflash: it’s a digital billboard with poilitical ads plastered across a city street for crying out loud.