Free Speech Union council member revealed as complainant of 'ridiculing' posts

Author: Katie Harris,
Publish Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026, 11:53am

Political commentator Ani O’Brien has been revealed as the complainant accusing blogger Martyn Bradbury of “ridiculing” and “abusive” online posts.

She requested her name suppression be removed in the Auckland District Court this morning due to the “amount of speculation” about her identity.

“Given some of the aspects discussed in the media especially around an organisation I am on the board of its [sic] causing more harm than good the speculation.”

O’Brien is on the council of the Free Speech Union, which has criticised reporting restrictions in this case and the Harmful Digital Communications Act itself.

Judge David Sharp said other information will remain suppressed, including the nature of the alleged harmful communication.

He set a next hearing date for December 9.

Last month, a judge granted O’Brien’s request for the blogs to be removed on an interim basis, but denied the person’s request for Bradbury to issue a public apology.

Martyn Bradbury. Photo / NZME

Bradbury earlier stated he was prepared to go to jail if needed to preserve the principle of free speech and said he would not be apologising to the complainant and the case is a “terrible abuse of process”.

Complainant ‘depressed and fearful’

The case got underway last week, but was adjourned until today.

In an interim decision, provided to the Herald, Judge Kate Davenport said the complainant had complained to Netsafe, alleging the posts had had a “profound impact on [the person’s] mood”.

“Netsafe has completed their investigations and assessed the complaint against: (a) Principal 4 – a digital communication should not be indecent or obscene [and] (b) Principal 5 – a digital communication should not be used to harass an individual,” said the judge.

“Having read the posts complained of, it is clear that the applicant has established a breach of those communication principles on an interim basis.”

Judge Kate Davenport. Photo / File

The complainant alleged she had become “depressed and fearful”, and was worried for their safety.

While Judge Davenport made an interim order for the four blog posts at issue to be removed, she declined to order a apology be issued.

Reporting restrictions ‘gags everyone’

Yesterday the Free Speech Union backed an application from The Post to remove reporting restrictions on the proceedings.

Chair Stephen Franks said the case shows how “crippling” it can be for freedom of speech, and for the public right to know, when an unreformed law gags everyone but insiders from even knowing about a case.

“This example matters, because it has drawn solid media attention to the dangers in the law.

“Interim orders under this Act can be made before any claim has been tested, and often before the other side has been heard.”

Franks said an untested assertion of distress could displace the public interest in reporting.

“And it can do so before anyone has established that a communication was unlawful.

“It is not clear that the orders in this case bind the media directly, and it is good to see The Post deciding to put that to the test.”

Katie Harris is an Auckland-based journalist who covers issues such as sexual assault, workplace misconduct, media, crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2020.