Freedom of Speech (Terms and Conditions Apply)

Seymour sells principle like a product, with plenty of fine print.

David Seymour has built a political brand around being the straight-talking defender of free speech. But from the beginning, it has looked more like marketing than principle.

Abortion clinic protests: all talk, no vote

Take the issue of protest-free zones around abortion clinics. Seymour publicly criticised the proposal, invoking the importance of the right to protest, when considering abortion legalisation. Yet he refused to make his vote for the legislation conditional on the protest ban being removed.

In the end, the ban was removed from the bill because Labour MPs accidentally voted against their own legislation, and Seymour got to polish his libertarian credentials without taking any political risk.

When the ban came back, so did the silence

When the ban was reintroduced later in subsequent legislation, ACT voted for it unanimously. Seymour said nothing. The media didn’t blink. And his reputation as a principled liberal remained strangely intact.

Still talking, still posturing

Since then, he has kept up the performance. ACT has proposed laws to bolster academic freedom, and Seymour recently appeared on The Platform to criticise Victoria University for postponing a panel on free speech. These are good things, in isolation. But they do not square with what came next.

Seymour’s double standard on academic freedom

On 31 March 2025, Seymour took to Facebook to call for the sacking of academics Khylee Quince and Wiremu Tipuna. He posted:

“If senior university staff can’t keep their racist views to themselves they should resign or be sacked.”

He was reacting to some pointed, arguably over-the-top, remarks the two made about Gary Judd and Parmjeet Parmar. I like Khylee, but it wasn’t her finest hour.

The “cancel culture” he claims to oppose

Even so, the idea that disagreeable speech by academics justifies demands for their dismissal is flatly inconsistent with the principle of academic freedom. Seymour talks about defending universities from “cancel culture”, yet here he was engaging in it. He seems to act in defence of free speech only when it suits him.

Free speech as slogan, not substance

This sort of behaviour suggests that for Seymour, free speech is more of a slogan than a conviction. When it advances his brand or allows him to attack his opponents, he is all for it. But when someone uses their freedom to say something he finds offensive or politically awkward, he reaches for the same tools of pressure and exclusion he claims to oppose.

Opportunism, not principle

I am no fan of identity politics. But you cannot claim to be the antidote to “cancel culture” while trying to drive people from their jobs over words. That is not principle. It is opportunism. And it deserves to be called out.