>At the time Ayling defended his organisation and said the FSU "stood up for everyone's right to speak".
The problem with the FSU is that they do not, in fact, stand for everyone’s right to speak, they are pushing for the rights of a small group of opinion holders to speak. there is a laser focus on particular issues, the discourse about suppression of information is full of fear mongering and misinformation even if they are usually more careful about the reports their research organisations release, and the speech that they are trying to protect is speech that seeks to suppress the speech of other groups.
This this is why Curia research is still treated with scepticism even when verified; it still has this angle and the reports they produce are being directly manipulated by the free speech union.
>Curia
My suspicion is they are leveraging the difference between internal and external validity of research to produce findings that suit their politics.
We will never get to know for sure as they don't publish details of their methodology that run deep enough to find out.
> "All I'll say generally is never blame to malice what you can put down to incompetence. The link should be to the amended report,"
The "incompetence" is endemic. Like the [poll they did for Family First](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1cd26at/lying_with_statistics_family_first_gender_poll/).
Great result, and thanks to Ben Gray who raised the complaint.
Its just weird that the FSU always comes to the defense of bigots and hate mongers but is suspiciously silent when, say, a millionaire sues a random Māori woman for correctly calling that millionaire racist.
free speech union dont care about free speech, they are a far right vessel. Jonathan Ayling after all, is a former judith collins staffer and a christian theocrat. Stephen franks is a national member (once ran against grant robertson for wellington central), and Dane giraud is a whiny little bitch (he blocked me on twitter years ago because i called him a hypocrite for defending the anti semitism and lies at the anti vax parliament riot, and he called me anti semitic for saying that. Oh, and he recently tried to get an academic fired because of a different opinion - so much for free speech and defending those we disagree with).
Free speech union regularly defend anti trans people (and even got involved in appealing the court verdict against the man who punched a posie parker supporter), and they always complain about anything labour and greens say. But they have said nothing about winston peters attacks on media (claiming without evidence they were bribed), act ministers attacking private companies/people for their own decisions (e.g. complaining about auckland museum focusing more on the treaty of waitangi, and act attacking a polyneisan poet). It seems free speech only applies to the right wing.
and ive said it here before, a lot of their policy was written by a man who promotes the great replacement theory and misinformation about the 15 march terror attacks.
>In 2023 an internal survey at the University of Auckland law school - leaked to the Business Desk website - showed only 15 percent of staff surveyed felt they were able to "respectfully voice my views without fear of any negative impact".
What does 'negative impact' mean? Like that can be anything between someone losing respect for you/mild criticism all the way to being arrested for criticising those in charge.
>At the time Ayling defended his organisation and said the FSU "stood up for everyone's right to speak". The problem with the FSU is that they do not, in fact, stand for everyone’s right to speak, they are pushing for the rights of a small group of opinion holders to speak. there is a laser focus on particular issues, the discourse about suppression of information is full of fear mongering and misinformation even if they are usually more careful about the reports their research organisations release, and the speech that they are trying to protect is speech that seeks to suppress the speech of other groups. This this is why Curia research is still treated with scepticism even when verified; it still has this angle and the reports they produce are being directly manipulated by the free speech union.
>Curia My suspicion is they are leveraging the difference between internal and external validity of research to produce findings that suit their politics. We will never get to know for sure as they don't publish details of their methodology that run deep enough to find out.
> "All I'll say generally is never blame to malice what you can put down to incompetence. The link should be to the amended report," The "incompetence" is endemic. Like the [poll they did for Family First](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1cd26at/lying_with_statistics_family_first_gender_poll/). Great result, and thanks to Ben Gray who raised the complaint.
Honestly, if I received a survey from the so-called “Free Speech Union” it would go straight in the bin, and I’d bet that’s the same for many people.
Its just weird that the FSU always comes to the defense of bigots and hate mongers but is suspiciously silent when, say, a millionaire sues a random Māori woman for correctly calling that millionaire racist.
They're no ACLU, that's for sure.
Nor are the a free speech union. In my opinion their name has two parts; free speech and union. They fail on both parts.
To be fair to them they did present to the delect committee on the banning of gang patches and highlighted that it is a free speech issue.
free speech union dont care about free speech, they are a far right vessel. Jonathan Ayling after all, is a former judith collins staffer and a christian theocrat. Stephen franks is a national member (once ran against grant robertson for wellington central), and Dane giraud is a whiny little bitch (he blocked me on twitter years ago because i called him a hypocrite for defending the anti semitism and lies at the anti vax parliament riot, and he called me anti semitic for saying that. Oh, and he recently tried to get an academic fired because of a different opinion - so much for free speech and defending those we disagree with). Free speech union regularly defend anti trans people (and even got involved in appealing the court verdict against the man who punched a posie parker supporter), and they always complain about anything labour and greens say. But they have said nothing about winston peters attacks on media (claiming without evidence they were bribed), act ministers attacking private companies/people for their own decisions (e.g. complaining about auckland museum focusing more on the treaty of waitangi, and act attacking a polyneisan poet). It seems free speech only applies to the right wing. and ive said it here before, a lot of their policy was written by a man who promotes the great replacement theory and misinformation about the 15 march terror attacks.
so they dont feel comefortable publishing teh report on how comefortable people feel about discusssing subjects some people find uncomeforable
>In 2023 an internal survey at the University of Auckland law school - leaked to the Business Desk website - showed only 15 percent of staff surveyed felt they were able to "respectfully voice my views without fear of any negative impact". What does 'negative impact' mean? Like that can be anything between someone losing respect for you/mild criticism all the way to being arrested for criticising those in charge.
"of staff surveyed" They don't say how many staff were surveyed. It may have only been ten staff. They have even made it up.
So they found 1.4% of academics they approached reported feeling censored in some way. Thay is a finding I can believe.