Statement from Ani O’Brien:
Today I asked the Court to lift the suppression of my identity in regards to my Harmful Digital Communications case against Martyn Bradbury.
The publicity and speculation generated by Mr Bradbury despite the interim court orders since these proceedings became public meant that the orders were causing more harm than they were preventing. I would rather put my name to my decision and explain for myself why I took this action.
I want to be absolutely clear that I have never sought to prevent Martyn Bradbury from criticising my politics, opinions, or public work. My affidavit explicitly states that Mr Bradbury should be free to do so. I went to Netsafe, and ultimately the Court, due to, what was in my view, a sustained and increasingly personal campaign that extended into defamatory and cruel harassment. I had asked him directly to stop and he told me to go to Netsafe or the Police.
The orders issued by the court were interim orders. They were temporary measures put in place so the matter could go to Court and both parties could be heard. They were not a final determination of the case or a permanent prohibition on Martyn Bradbury being able to talk about me. Unfortunately, Mr Bradbury chose to turn that short interim period into a very public campaign portraying himself as a free speech martyr facing imprisonment.
This is my personal proceeding. It was not brought by, funded by, or on behalf of the Free Speech Union. Mr Bradbury’s claims to the contrary are false. I continue to believe the Harmful Digital Communications Act is deeply flawed and needs reform. My experience in this case has strengthened rather than weakened that view.
The substantive matter remains before the Court, so I will not litigate the legal issues through social media. I will, however, now be able to speak more openly and correct the incorrect information that has circulated.
