The Freedom to Reject

A Property-Based Rationale for Refusing to Print an Advertisement

It seems that NZME refused to print an advertisement submitted for publication by Hobson’s Pledge. The advertisement was an advocacy one about the Treaty Principles Bill.

Don Brash wrote an impassioned piece about NZME’s refusal to run the advertisement. He claimed that

“the leadership at NZME want to censor what you see, read, and hear. They were set on finding any excuse not to publish an ad that supported the Treaty Principles Bill.”

It appears that NZME put all sorts of obstacles in the way of publishing the advertisement as it was submitted including a rather unflattering photoshopped image of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Brash states:

“In the end, NZME said they would only publish the ad if we removed the image of Luxon and replaced it with a silhouette or some kind of stock image. What? What would be the point in that? The message is about the Prime Minister, not some mysterious shadowy figure!

Their decision to yet again reject one of our ads is appalling. It’s prejudiced, censorious, and it’s wrong.”

The problem is that Mr Brash does not explain why the decision is wrong.

Readers will be well aware of my support for freedom of expression. And in some respects it would seem that by suggesting that NZME and the Herald were refusing the advertisement and were censoring the Hobson’s Pledge material, there was an interference with the freedom of expression.

But I would suggest there is more to it than that. This is not so much an issue of freedom of expression as the decision by a property owner to refuse to have property used to further a cause that is not supported.

Let’s look at this objectively. We all know that NZME is a publicly listed company. It is owned by its shareholders. At the moment there is a bit of a battle going on about the future of NZME but I want to put that to one side.

NZME is the property of the shareholders whose interests are represented by the Board and by the executive of NZME.

Property rights are the foundation of all other rights. A business owner’s right to use and dispose of their property according to their own judgment is central to a free society.

In the context of this discussion the newspaper is private property, owned by shareholders. Its facilities — the presses, the editorial decisions, the advertising space — are under the voluntary control of its owners or those delegated with managerial authority.

And flowing from this, no one has a right to demand the use of another’s property. Hobson’s Choice requesting the advertisement may have the freedom to create and distribute its message elsewhere — but it has no moral claim to force the newspaper to publish its advertisement. That would be an interference with the owners' rights.

What must be remembered is that individuals and businesses must be free to choose with whom they associate and what they endorse. If a newspaper accepts an advocacy advertisement, it implicitly lends space and thus some form of legitimisation or visibility to that message.

The newspaper’s editorial board or owners may judge the message to be contrary to their values, irrelevant to their readership, or damaging to their brand. Just as a person cannot be compelled to speak words they do not believe, a media outlet cannot be compelled to publish messages it does not wish to disseminate.

So long as the State is not coercing the paper to accept or reject the advertisement, there is no violation of rights. The paper's refusal is an exercise of freedom — not a denial of it.

It should also be noted that a business acts morally when it operates in accordance with its long-term interests. Publishing an advocacy advertisement might alienate readers, harm the paper’s reputation, or clash with its editorial principles. Declining the advertisement may be based on a rational evaluation of consequences, including financial, reputational, or ideological factors.

If the owners or editors believe that running the ad would be detrimental to the goals or values of the enterprise, they are not only entitled but morally obliged to act according to their own reasoned judgment.

Private institutions should not be governed by a vague notion of “the public interest” or compelled to serve collective ends. Even if the organization pushing the ad claims it serves a noble or popular cause, this is irrelevant to the moral analysis. Even if the advocacy group believes it is representing a marginalized voice, it has no right to override the newspaper’s editorial autonomy.

The press – rather than being a public utility – is an extension of freedom of expression through private enterprise. It has the same right as any individual to speak or not to speak and to compel it to publish an advertisement would be equivalent to coerced speech which is morally repugnant.

Thus the following grounds justify the refusal (or diffidence) of NZME to accept the advertisement:

Property rights: The newspaper is under no obligation to sell space to anyone.

Freedom of expression: Refusing to publish an ad is an act of editorial autonomy.

Moral self-interest: The decision reflects the paper's rational assessment of its values and goals.

Non-aggression principle: Compulsion — even by public outcry — is immoral.

Rejection of collectivist ethics: No group has a moral claim over private judgment and enterprise.

If this line of reasoning is accepted it follows that the moment you compel a private party to publish content against its will — for any cause — you cease to be a defender of liberty and become an agent of tyranny, no matter how noble your intentions.

It is curious that this had not occurred to Mr. Brash and that his response in his article was an outburst at being rejected rather than thinking the matter through.

And by publishing the advertisement on the Basset, Brash and Hide blog Mr Brash and Hobson’s choice exercised the freedom to create and distribute its message elsewhere.