Source: Asia Pacific Report
A court struggle featuring Daily Blog editor and media freedom defender Martyn Bradbury has taken a surprise turn, with Free Speech Union (FSU) board member and political commentator Ani O’Brien being revealed as the complainant behind “secret” proceedings, reports Radia Waatea.
Bradbury, who is a regular commentator on Radio Waatea covering politics and current affairs, is defending proceedings brought under the Harmful Digital Communications Act over four items published by The Daily Blog, New Zealand’s largest independent leftwing media website.
O’Brien asked the Auckland District Court today to lift the order preventing her being identified to end public “speculation”.
- READ MORE: ‘I am now legally censored from even talking about being censored’ – Martyn ‘Bomber’ Bradbury
- Other Martyn Bradbury reports
However, The Post reports the FSU has condemned the actions of O’Brien, saying it did not support her case against Bradbury and was unaware of it until the media reported it last week.
Radio Waatea reports that the case has “become a significant debate about where freedom of political expression ends and harmful online communication begins”.
This was “made more unusual by O’Brien’s role with an organisation established to advocate for free speech”.
O’Brien had previously been protected by a court-ordered suppression order last month while pursuing the case, which was first heard in open court last week.
The Post had applied to the court to remove reporting restrictions on the proceedings.
‘Crippling’ unreformed law
FSU chair Stephen Franks said the case showed how “crippling” it could be for freedom of speech, and for the public right to know, when an unreformed law gagged “everyone but insiders from even knowing about a case”, reports The New Zealand Herald.
According to Radio Waatea and also The Daily Blog, the proceedings concerned four posts published by the website which O’Brien had alleged “contained personal attacks, ridicule and abuse”.
She had initially complained to Netsafe before taking the matter to the court under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
An interim court decision last month found O’Brien had established breaches of two communication principles under the Act, relating to “indecent or obscene” communications and the use of digital communications to “harass” an individual.
Bradbury was ordered on an interim basis to remove the disputed posts, although the judge declined to order him to apologise.
“The dispute has since developed into a wider argument about the boundaries of free speech and the powers available under legislation intended to protect people from serious online harm,” Radio Waatea said.
Bradbury has opposed the proceedings and has argued that his political commentary should be protected by the “right to freedom of expression”.
Seeking legal advice
He also declared earlier on The Daily Blog he was prepared to go to jail to defend the principle.
Last week, Judge David Sharp ordered Bradbury to remove commentary about the case on the website and to seek legal advice.
Today, the judge ruled that other information about the case would remain suppressed on an interim basis, including the nature of the alleged harmful communication.
He set the next court hearing for December 9.
Besides editing The Daily Blog, Bradbury presents a weekly television political panel, The Bradbury Group, and is a regular commentator for Radio Waatea on political and government issues affecting Indigenous Māori.
In an editorial, Radio Waatea manager Matthew Tukaki wrote: “There is something deeply ironic about a high-profile member of the Free Speech Union turning to the courts seeking restrictions on speech she finds offensive.
“That is now the uncomfortable backdrop to the legal battle involving Waatea political commentator and The Daily Blog editor Martyn Bradbury and Free Speech Union board member Ani O’Brien.
“And the irony is difficult to ignore.
“The Free Speech Union has built its public reputation championing the proposition that freedom of expression must protect speech that is uncomfortable, unpopular and offensive. That principle matters precisely because free speech becomes meaningless if it extends only to opinions we approve of.”
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/08/13/free-speech-union-board-member-revealed-in-daily-blog-editor-martyn-bradburys-gagging-case/