Is it now a criminal offence to pray for someone struggling with gender confusion? Could a parent face prosecution for affirming their child's biological sex? 

Bob McCoskrie of Family First joins Dane to unpack the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022 — and why he believes it should be repealed immediately. 

Bob explains how the law's vague definitions, the removal of consent as a legal defence, and its deliberate one-directional design have created a chilling effect on counsellors, parents, and religious communities alike. 

He makes a striking argument: now that the government has banned puberty blockers, the conversion therapy law is actively fighting itself — criminalising the very parental behaviour the government now endorses. 

The conversation also covers the under-16 social media ban debate (Bob's answer is more nuanced than you'd expect), the lessons from the 2020 cannabis referendum, and why shutting down debate always backfires. 

CHAPTERS 

0:00 – Introduction & South Auckland memories 

4:35 – What is the Conversion Practices Act and why does it exist? 

9:40 – Vague definitions and the consent trap 

19:15 – Prayer, parenting, and the chilling effect 

25:33 – Detransition stories and the clinical pushback 

30:28 – The under-16 social media ban debate 

38:52 – Holding big tech accountable 

48:10 – The puberty blockers ban creates a legal contradiction 

52:00 – Cannabis referendum: how Bob beat Chloe Swarbrick

57:30 – Media silence, labels, and free speech

Support the show

https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz

Young men drifting to the Right is the half of the story everyone is reporting. The other half — young women radicalising Left at an even faster rate — is barely discussed. And when politics becomes completely gendered, Michael Johnston warns, it spells disaster. In this episode of Free to Speak, Dane Giroud sits down with Michael Johnston — Senior Fellow at The New Zealand Initiative and leader of its work on education — to take apart what's really driving youth radicalisation on both sides. 

They get into what "left" and "right" even mean to today's young people (and why, by one definition, Te Pāti Māori is the most right-wing party in Parliament), the housing market as the single biggest threat to liberal democracy, why universalism matters, and the case for free speech as the weapon of the powerless. The conversation then turns to Michael's home turf: education. 

How did a 19th century NZ schooling system that was, by the standards of the time, remarkably liberal and knowledge-focused end up where it is now? What did Tomorrow's Schools and the 2007 curriculum actually do? And why — beyond economics — do boys in particular need male mentors and male-only spaces to find out who they are? Dane shares the story of how Raymond Hawthorne opened up Shakespeare for a kid from South Auckland who never expected to read it. 🎙️ Recorded for the Free to Speak podcast — the official podcast of the New Zealand Free Speech Union. 

Support the show

https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz

Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa'I served four years on the Broadcasting Standards Authority. With the BSA now set to be abolished by the Coalition Government following the Sean Plunket / The Platform jurisdictional decision, she sits down with FSU Council member Dane Giraud for an open exchange on what the BSA actually does, where free speech and protection from harm collide, and whether scrapping the body off the back of a single controversial ruling was good process.

It's a genuinely civil disagreement — and one of the more substantive conversations on broadcasting regulation you'll find in New Zealand right now.

They cover:
- How BSA complaints actually work — and why only ~8% are upheld
- The elasticity of "harm" and who gets to define it
- The Heather du Plessis-Allan ruling and whether counter-speech would have done more
- The Plunket / Platform jurisdictional decision and the cost-of-appeal problem
- Why years of reform consultation were shelved before the BSA was scrapped
- Online pile-ons, platform accountability, and the Mikey Sherman case
- David Harvey's voluntary-standards model — and its gaps
- Vexatious complaints, and the BSA's 2020 decision not to hear complaints about te reo Māori

Support the show

https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz

"There is a crisis of honesty — and we're seeing the consequences in every sphere of life." 

American philosopher Peter Boghossian — author of How to Have Impossible Conversations and the mind behind Spectrum Street Epistemology — joins host Dane Giraud for a wide-ranging conversation on free speech, polarisation, religion, antisemitism, the trans medicalisation scandal, the breakdown of moral consensus, and why honest disagreement has become so rare. 

🎟️ SEE PETER LIVE IN AUCKLAND — SATURDAY 16 MAY Peter's final New Zealand appearance. Ellen Melville Centre, Auckland CBD. Doors 4:45pm | Starts 5:30pm | Tickets $10. 

Book: https://www.fsu.nz/events/free-speech-union-peter-boghossian-free-speech-hard-conversations-and-whats-at-risk 

IN THIS EPISODE 

— What Spectrum Street Epistemology actually is, and why Peter uses it with school students 

— Why "online is a cesspool" and what in-person disagreement teaches that comments never will 

— The atheists who are more religious than the religious 

— The breakdown of the dominant moral order and the necessary backlash that follows 

— Sacred cows: the topics institutions still refuse to discuss honestly 

— The trans medicalisation scandal and the cost of suppressing dissent 

— Rising antisemitism in the UK and the institutional unwillingness to name what's happening 

— Dane's own recent experience of an antisemitic smear 

— and how to respond 

— Why the Israel–Palestine conversation collapses, even between people willing to talk 

— Reading scripture as literature, and the value of radical self-knowledge 

— Why fighting, jiu-jitsu and stand-up comedy share something the cognitive world has lost: a corrective mechanism 

— The crisis of honesty 

— and why everything downstream of it is breaking 

CHAPTERS 

(00:00) Welcome & guest introduction 

(01:55) Why Peter keeps coming back to New Zealand 

(03:48) How Spectrum Street Epistemology works 

(05:48) Why online conversation turns toxic 

(08:16) Making evidence and doubt fun 

(10:02) Religion, identity, and moral certainty 

(16:18) When moral orders break down 

(22:34) Echo chambers and institutional capture 

(27:04) Sacred cows and policy taboo topics 

(42:46) A personal smear story unpacked 

(46:02) Why some conflicts resist dialogue 

(51:42) Reading scripture as self-knowledge 

(56:52) Fighting, reality checks, and integrity 

(1:00:02) The crisis of honesty 

(1:09:12) Final thanks 

ABOUT PETER BOGHOSSIAN 

American philosopher, author of How to Have Impossible Conversations (with James Lindsay), and founder of the Spectrum Street Epistemology project. Formerly faculty at Portland State University. His work focuses on belief revision, civil discourse, and how people change their minds. 

Support the show

https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz

We weigh the push for an under-16 social media ban against what it would take to enforce it and what it would cost in privacy, anonymity, and open debate. We use Australia and the UK as cautionary examples and argue that empowering parents and teaching digital literacy beats outsourcing speech rules to the state.
• Australia’s ban in practice, including high rates of circumvention and account shutdowns
• unintended shift of young people towards riskier platforms and unfiltered browsing
• why age verification undermines anonymous speech and creates data breach exposure
• the case for anonymity, from historical pamphleteers to modern whistleblowers
• parental responsibility, practical tools, and education as alternatives to blanket bans
• moral panic patterns and why correlation is not causation in harms research
• how “design not content” arguments can mask censorship incentives
• why government-defined “harmful speech” becomes political and inconsistent
If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others.

Support the show

https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz

We talk with Irish organiser Laszlo Manafi about why class-first socialism is clashing with the liberal left, and how that split shapes everything from campus politics to protest rights. We dig into Marxism as a way of analysing power, then trace why free speech matters even when the cause feels righteous. 

• Class-first organising and why self-criticism on the left matters 
• what Laszlo means by liberalism and how identity politics displaces class 
• the cultural turn, NGO influence, and elite capture in universities 
• Marxism as a framework rather than a fixed policy menu 
• libertarian socialism, workplace democracy, and limits of liberal democracy 
• what the Soviet Union shows about power and internal democracy 
• Marx on censorship and why hate speech laws expand state power 
• protest policing, Palestine activism, and the risks of deplatforming 

If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others. 

We release new episodes regularly, and subscribing is the easiest way to stay up to date. If you have any questions, feedback or suggestions, you can contact us at podcast at fsu.nz. 

If you want to find out more about the New Zealand Free Speech Union, visit fsu.nz. 

Support the show

https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz

We explore who gets to set the rules for online speech in New Zealand, from InternetNZ’s direction shift to the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s expanding remit. Dr David Harvey and Douglas Brown argue for reforms that protect freedom of expression while still addressing real online harm.

• what InternetNZ controls through the .nz domain and why that power matters 
• the post-Christchurch Call shift toward a “safe internet” narrative and why “safe” is hard to define 
• mission creep risks when unelected bodies expand into speech regulation 
• a proposed Media and Communications Authority with three divisions for news, content, and online harm 
• voluntary opt-in regulation backed by incentives such as journalist protections and safe harbour 
• why harm should be evidence-based rather than offence-based 
• governments and the urge to control the message across every new communications platform 
• the under-16 social media ban debate including enforcement problems, VPN workarounds, and privacy trade-offs 
• why overseas platforms can ignore local rules and what targeting jurisdiction might look like 
• how to support a stronger free speech voice in InternetNZ board elections through membership timing

If you enjoyed this episode please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others. We release new episodes regularly and subscribing is the easiest way to stay up to date. If you have any questions feedback or suggestions you can contact us at podcast at fsu.nz if you want to find out more about the New Zealand free speech union visit fsu.nz

Support the show

https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz

We sit down with Professor Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, to unpack Australia’s post-crisis push for tougher hate and extremism laws and what that signals for democratic debate. We dig into where international human rights law draws the line on speech and why vague drafting and executive power can chill legitimate political criticism while failing to stop real violence. 

• Australia’s lack of a federal Bill of Rights and why that leaves freedoms exposed 
• what a UN Special Rapporteur does and how counterterrorism is meant to protect rights 
• how the ICCPR treats freedom of expression and when limits can be lawful 
• incitement to violence versus “glorification” and why the boundary matters 
• problems with criminalising “promoting hatred” rather than inciting hatred 
• the danger of subjective “fear” standards in a plural society 
• religious texts and why religion should not shield incitement 
• prohibited hate groups, ministerial discretion, procedural fairness and weak avenues to challenge listings 
• why bans can push extremists underground and create a chilling effect 

If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others. 
If you have any questions, feedback, or suggestions, you can contact us at podcast at fsu.nz. 
If you want to find out more about the New Zealand Free Speech Union, visit fsu.nz.

Support the show

https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz

We argue that real free speech requires the courage to criticise the radicals on our own side without sliding into denunciation or cancellation. We test where open debate ends and coercion begins, from political correctness and taboo research to hate speech laws and contested definitions of antisemitism. 
• why “never criticise your right” weakens debate and traps movements in loyalty tests 
• media and institutional power shaping the Overton window of acceptable speech 
• political correctness as stigma and censorship rather than honest disagreement 
• Orwell as a model for improving your own side through hard critique 
• whether “moderate” and “extreme” are cultural fashion labels 
• race, IQ, biology, and the risks of building policy on abstract assumptions 
• trans politics as a flashpoint for sex based differences in law and safety 
• diversity, social trust, and conflicting evidence versus lived experience 
• hate speech laws in Australia and the Joel Davis case as a warning 
• the IHRA definition of antisemitism and how broad rules can chill debate 
• platforming controversial voices versus correcting misinformation in public 
If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others. 

Support the show

https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz

We break down the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s claim that it can regulate online platforms under the Broadcasting Act 1989, even though Parliament never updated the law for the internet. We talk through why that change threatens open debate, why the standards are so subjective, and why we think this fight matters for free speech in New Zealand. 
• the BSA asserting jurisdiction over online speech via an old statute 
• why broadcast standards existed in a scarce spectrum era 
• how the internet breaks the logic of compulsory audiences and balance rules 
• the subjectivity of “good taste and decency” and why it becomes a power tool 
• Tikanga flashpoints and the idea of modern “heresy trials” 
• inconsistencies in targeting small outlets while excluding major platforms 
• the practical mess of defining audiences and applying on-demand exceptions 
• the chilling effect of complaints, process costs, and potential fines 
• political and international risks if New Zealand is seen to censor platforms 
• why we say we have to fight and what could come next 
If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others. We release new episodes regularly, and subscribing is the easiest way to stay up to date. If you have any questions, feedback or suggestions, you can contact us at podcast at fsu.nz. If you want to find out more about the New Zealand Free Speech Union, visit fsu.nz. 

Support the show

https://www.fsu.nz/
https://x.com/NZFreeSpeech
https://www.instagram.com/freespeechnz/
https://www.tiktok.com/@freespeechunionnz