A members-run not-for-profit that manages access to the .nz internet domain has been caught up in a manufactured controversy that’s stoking fears of censorship. It’s nothing new, but it matters, argues Kyle Matthews.

Over the last fortnight, InternetNZ has been drawn into a “culture war” with the Free Speech Union (FSU) over its plans to adopt a new constitution which incorporates the Treaty of Waitangi. InternetNZ is a membership-run not-for-profit that manages access to the .nz internet domain and therefore the place you apply to when you want to set up a new website. The struggle began when former district court judge and InternetNZ member, David Harvey, argued in an FSU newsletter that the proposed new InternetNZ constitution “will make the organisation co-governed, and constitutionally required to implement policies that will eliminate harm on the internet” by censoring domain names within New Zealand, and therefore free speech online.

Within a week, InternetNZ’s membership, which is made up of individuals and organisations with a commitment to an open, accessible and safe internet, had more than doubled, as FSU’s supporters joined up. InternetNZ issued a media statement correcting what it argued was “misinformation” by the FSU, stating that “the constitutional review is about organisational governance and won’t change how domain names are managed or give InternetNZ any expanded powers over domain names”. Individuals and organisations opposed to the FSU’s takeover, such as ActionStation, began to mobilise supporters to act in defence of InternetNZ. A membership race had begun, with InternetNZ the unwilling battleground.

Culture wars are struggles over social change that threaten privilege, particularly white male privilege. Conservatives respond by trying to move the debate questions of human rights, equity, justice and privilege to cultural signifiers. Cultural signifiers are phrases that are easy to mobilise people to defend without having to provide evidence about what is actually under threat. For example, the rights of transgender people to use a bathroom in which they feel safe is countered with calls to “protect women”, despite the greatest physical threat to women being cis-gendered men. Increasing the number of Māori and Pasifika students accessing medical school training becomes “reverse racism”, rather than a serious attempt to resolve the problem of not having an ethnically diverse medical workforce. Because who could argue against protecting women and who wants our medical schools to be racist?

By using cultural signifiers, conservatives can manufacture controversies, position themselves as victims, and mobilise us to act against social change. For conservatives, this strategy works because while they often lack evidence in support of their arguments, cultural signifiers activate negative emotions, particularly resentment and fear responses. When resentment and fear are activated, we are less likely to consider the topic in terms of evidence about the suggested change and more likely to stick with the status quo.

In my research on the FSU, I’ve found they lean heavily on these cultural signifiers, particularly protecting “free speech” from the threat of “censorship”. Their website, social media feeds and public talks activate supporters around these two ideas by making them fear that institutions, particularly government institutions, are limiting free speech through censorship. This includes attempts to introduce hate speech laws, train police officers to report on hate crimes, regulate the internet, and prevent hateful individuals travelling to Aotearoa to speak. In all these campaigns, the FSU claims that free speech is under threat from censorship but provides little evidence of that threat. 

For InternetNZ, the perceived threat that the FSU sees is “what does it mean when the organisation which is responsible for deciding what names we can use on the internet centres the Treaty in its constitution and governance systems?” I suggest that it is not random that FSU’s attempt to prevent InternetNZ incorporating the Treaty in its constitution is happening at the same time that the debate over the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill is happening in parliament. Both debates draw on insecurities that flow through some parts of Aotearoa about how the Treaty can be read as offering Māori additional rights over non-Māori that act as a veto.

The FSU has not engaged with the question of what the implications are for InternetNZ of the Treaty of Waitangi, and how it might incorporate the Treaty while fulfilling its obligations of maintaining free and open access to internet domains. This is despite InternetNZ pointing out that the process of changing the constitution won’t change how domain names are managed in Aotearoa. Again, the fears don’t need to be based on evidence to mobilise people to action. Instead, the FSU’s media release of February 27 says that its concern is “what becomes of the organisation that plays a key role in internet governance once these undemocratic, ideological, and censorship-prone changes are implemented”.

Did you catch three cultural signifiers – undemocratic, ideological and censorship-prone – whizzing past? Let’s review whether all three are valid. 1. Undemocratic? InternetNZ is a member-driven organisation and its existing membership will vote on the new proposed constitution, as has been the case for decades. That is democracy in action. 2. Ideological? But everything is ideological. The FSU has a free-speech ideology. InternetNZ and its approach to the internet reflects the ideologies of its members who have been implementing a free and open internet for decades. 3. Censorship-prone? The ways that InternetNZ manages the allocation of domain names won’t change and it’s not being given any additional powers to do so. There is no evidence presented that any of these three claims are true. But once the proposed constitutional change is positioned as threatening the cultural signifiers of democracy, openness and free speech, it feels threatening.

Sadly, as much as I’d like to suggest that readers not get sucked into a culture war, sometimes you must defend institutions that matter. InternetNZ, and its goal of free and open access to the internet, matters. It is reaching for the Treaty of Waitangi to try to understand how communities can come together in Aotearoa across difference to guide its work in meaningful ways. Its ability to make that decision is at risk from an organisation that is using “free speech” to impose its ideology on the organisation that has been managing our internet for decades. If the FSU signs up enough supporters, it could take over InternetNZ’s governing board at the next AGM, undoing all its good work. You can step up to defend them by becoming a member (cost $21) at internetnz.nz.