Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan: The Tonkin + Taylor saga shows free speech cuts both ways

Was Tonkin + Taylor right to apologise to Winston Peters for the employee heckling him?

Of course they were! They don't want to be associated with this kind of behaviour. The guy was wearing their work lanyard, it clearly identified him as a staffer and I had his name and photo land in my inbox at 4:41 yesterday afternoon.

Which is to say - people had already figured out who he is and who he works for. And if Tonkin + Taylor said nothing, rightly or wrongly, - there would be people who would assume they were fine with his behaviour or shared his views.

So it was a reputational risk for them to remain quiet. And they were right to publicly distance themselves from him - and an apology to Winston Peters seems like a perfectly reasonable way of doing it.

Also, it’s perfectly reasonable for them to call Mr Bollocks into the office and remind him not to embarrass them while he’s wearing a work lanyard. I think that seems fair.

But I think that’s where it has to end. The Free Speech Union raises some decent points - he should not be punished or fired for it, he's entitled to his views and he’s entitled to make a dick of himself in his own time if he wants to, which he clearly does.

His free speech should be defended, but so should the free speech of his chief executive, who didn’t like what she saw and wanted to say she was sorry on behalf of her company.

Free speech cuts both ways.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So was Tonkin and Taylor right to apologize to Winston
Peters for the employee heckling him. Yes, of course they were.
I mean, I don't want to get associated with that
kind of behavior, do they. This guy was wearing a
work lanyard. It clearly identified him as a staffer. I
had after mentioning it on the show yesterday, I had
his name and photo land in my inbox at four
forty one, that is yesterday afternoon, obviously, Which is to say,

(00:24):
the reason I'm telling you this is that people it
didn't take people very long to figure out who he
was and who he works for, And if Tonkin and
Taylor had said nothing, rightly or wrongly, there would be
people who would assume that they were fine with his behavior,
or perhaps even that they shared his views. So it
was actually a reputational risk for them to remain quiet,
and they were right to publicly distance themselves from him,

(00:46):
and an apology to Winston seems like a perfect, perfectly
reasonable way of publicly distancing themselves from him. I think
it is also perfectly reasonable for them to call old
mate Bollocks into the office and remind him not to
embarrass them when he's wearing a work lan Yet I
think that also seems like a fair thing to do.
But I think that is where it needs to end.
I mean, the Free Speech Union raise some very decent points.

(01:08):
He should not be punished or fired for what he did.
He is entitled to his views. He's entitled to make
a complete dick of himself in his own time if
he wants to, which obviously he did want to do.
His free speech on this matter should be defended, but
so should the free speech of the chief executive who
didn't like what she saw and wanted to say she
was sorry on behalf of her company. Free speech cuts

(01:31):
both ways. For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive, listen
live to news Talk sai'd Be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio