There is a myth perpetuated by some that free speech is under attack. This is politics. I understand the "why", but it's too easy to frame it this way and to do so ignores the physiology and the character of what a right is. Free speech has never been absolute. It's always been bound by Mill's harm principle and, in this case, serious harm. Boundaries placed around this and other rights interwoven into so many aspects of our legislative framework are a part of what our legislative system is—defamation, perjury, false advertising, obscenity, profanity, solicitation of a crime. The boundaries are explicitly stated in the Harmful Digital Communications Act—which the Opposition party will be very familiar with—the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, and other legislation. They are boundaried as a matter of the very process of developing legislation by the task that section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act asks of us, which foresees and expects an exercise of justified limitations. Legislative leadership doesn't mean declaring that rights should be unboundaried. It requires us to actively consider harm. It requires us to be coherent, not just to place reasonable limitations on a right to protect something like reputation, but also to do so where exercise of a right creates serious and long-term psychological harm.