« Law Commission makes privacy recommendations | Main | Lights out »
Bare reasoning
By Steven | March 12, 2010
In Lowe v New Zealand Police, Clifford J rightly overturns Nick Lowe’s conviction for offensive behaviour for cycling in the nude. It was on World Nude Bike Day, but Mr Lowe, “a committed cyclist and naturist”, doesn’t need that incentive to bike about naked. For example, he competes in the Coast to Coast without clothes (except, commendably, a helmet).
A woman had seen him riding along a relatively quiet rural road in Upper Hutt and complained, saying she was “fairly disgusted”, though she admitted she hadn’t even seen his tackle. The judge said that this didn’t satisfy the test of behaviour liable to cause substantial offence, or capable “of wounding feelings or arousing real anger, resentment, disgust or outrage in the mind of a reasonable person of the kind actually subjected to it”. (Note that this doesn’t close the door to an offensive behaviour prosecution of someone going naked in different circumstances… such as walking along a suburban street.)
The bit I take exception to is where the judge apparently decides that there is no element of freedom of expression in his behaviour (which would have meant that the judge would have to take it into account in interpreting and applying the offence). The only thing that makes the judge pause before reaching this conclusion is that it was World Nude Bike Day, and “Mr Lowe’s behaviour could possibly be seen as an expression of opinion in support”. He rejects this, as Mr Lowe does not seem to have regarded it as especially significant.
I hope the problem here is obvious: it’s not necessary for Mr Lowe’s conduct to be linked to World Nude Bike Day for it to involve a speech issue. As the judge says, Mr Lowe is “a committed naturist” whose “personal view is that it is appropriate to be nude in a wide range of situations where others would consider that such behaviour was, at best, inappropriate.” Nudity, for Mr Lowe, is itself an element of self-expression. It is also itself a political statement – a message about how society ought to be ordered. This plainly falls within the ambit of the Bill of Rights’ protection of free speech.
I’m not saying that all conduct amounts to speech. I’m not saying that his conduct falls at the core of the right to freedom of speech. I’m not saying that limitations on his speech-conduct can never be justified. But I am saying that this is plainly a speech issue, and it’s rather dismaying to see a High Court judge failing to recognise it as such.
Topics: Free speech theory, NZ Bill of Rights Act, Protest speech | 48 Comments »
48 Responses to “Bare reasoning”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 22nd, 2020 at 2:47 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
June 17th, 2020 at 1:15 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
June 27th, 2020 at 11:54 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 3:01 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
August 27th, 2020 at 12:57 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
August 29th, 2020 at 1:19 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
August 30th, 2020 at 3:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
September 9th, 2020 at 12:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 38990 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
September 23rd, 2020 at 7:54 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
September 27th, 2020 at 11:54 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 34761 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
September 30th, 2020 at 10:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
October 2nd, 2020 at 12:59 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 3289 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
October 10th, 2020 at 4:27 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
November 9th, 2020 at 1:13 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
November 28th, 2020 at 4:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
November 30th, 2020 at 3:41 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
December 4th, 2020 at 9:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
December 7th, 2020 at 2:54 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
December 10th, 2020 at 6:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
December 16th, 2020 at 3:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
February 15th, 2021 at 1:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 98782 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
March 28th, 2021 at 12:41 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 26665 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
June 4th, 2021 at 4:01 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 12725 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
June 13th, 2021 at 1:53 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
June 15th, 2021 at 10:46 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
June 27th, 2021 at 1:52 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 73027 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 11:40 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
July 7th, 2021 at 1:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
September 1st, 2021 at 6:00 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
October 4th, 2021 at 5:28 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
October 17th, 2021 at 11:30 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
October 20th, 2021 at 1:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
November 10th, 2021 at 12:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
November 13th, 2021 at 3:02 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
December 18th, 2021 at 6:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
January 6th, 2022 at 1:08 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
January 7th, 2022 at 10:04 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
January 18th, 2022 at 1:44 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
February 25th, 2022 at 12:19 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
February 26th, 2022 at 2:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
April 12th, 2022 at 12:43 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
May 12th, 2022 at 11:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
June 1st, 2022 at 11:58 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
June 6th, 2022 at 12:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
June 21st, 2022 at 6:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
July 3rd, 2022 at 11:46 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
July 6th, 2022 at 12:18 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]
July 21st, 2022 at 1:34 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 38048 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=352 […]