04/08/2026
Martyn Bradbury says he’s ‘gagged’ as court battle over blog posts delayed; welcomes Free Speech Union support
|
The Post
August 4, 2026 • 9:56am
Blogger Martyn Bradbury has appeared in the Auckland District Court to defend claims that posts on his website, The Daily Blog, may have breached the Harmful Digital Communications Act.
But the issue has been adjourned for another week, with Judge David Sharp warning Bradbury that his public comments on the legal proceedings may risk seeing him found in contempt of court and suggesting he seek further legal advice.
Bradbury - who is nicknamed “Bomber” for his bombastic speaking style - wrote on his website over the weekend that four of his blog posts had been “censored” and he was facing a possible fine or a prison sentence of six months.
“We can’t tell you who is doing this, we can’t tell why it’s being done, we can’t tell you how it’s being done, and we can’t tell you what has been censored,” he wrote.
“I want everyone involved in this to be made public, because Free Speech issues like this are definitely in the public interest.”
The Post has seen the court documents but cannot report who the complainant is.
The complainant alleged the blog posts breached the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA) and were “personal attacks”.
They said the posts had caused “significant personal emotional distress” and that Bradbury had been asked to stop but had failed to do so.
The complainant is seeking an apology from Bradbury.
Appearing in court on Tuesday morning, Bradbury, who was representing himself, said that he had concerns over limitations on free speech but was told by Judge Sharp that “the right to free speech is not absolute” and was subject to certain rules.
“You should take down anything contrary to [the interim ruling] and await your decision to set it aside, because otherwise, you see, you run the risk of being found to be in contempt of court,” Bradbury was told.
Bradbury has already removed the blog posts at the centre of the dispute, but was told that his public commentary on the matter risked drawing attention to the complainant, who cannot be named.
“It doesn't matter if you don't name them. If what you say is connected with these proceedings ... then ... it could be taken as in breach of the order.”
The unnamed complainant appeared via audio link.
Bradbury said he was “deeply disappointed” the matter wasn’t thrown out of court today.
“It simply means that I still can't talk about this event. I still can't talk about the person at the centre of this. So I'm just gagged,” he told reporters.
Bradbury confirmed he will be seeking legal advice before his next court appearance, but did not rule out continuing to represent himself.
He has also approached the Free Speech Union for support. It’s understood he has since received a response.
In a press release this morning, Free Speech Union’s chairperson Stephen Franks said the group remained against the HDCA and described it as “bad law”.
“If [Bradbury] believes he has been wrongly gagged, he should get in touch. Given his long hostility to the Free Speech Union, that might be difficult for him, but we regularly defend people many of us disagree with. We choose cases that highlight key principles.”
Franks said that despite opposing the law, that did not mean people should not choose to use it.
“Wanting a law reformed has never obliged anyone to disarm while it remains on the books,” said Franks.
“Every citizen may use the protections Parliament has enacted, whatever any of us thinks of them. Lawyers do it every day, applying rules for their clients that they would rather see abolished tomorrow. That is not hypocrisy. It is the ordinary use of the law as it stands, and it is exactly why leaving bad law in force is so dangerous. Bad law does not sit quietly. It gets used.”
Earlier, Bradbury told The Post it was “good to have [the union’s] support”.
“I know in my heart of hearts that the Free Speech Union will also want whoever is behind this to be outed as well, because it's important for us to know who's doing these sorts of things.”
Bradbury also said he wanted his blog posts restored.
“I just think that using the threat of six months in prison for political blogs is … I don't think the law was ever written for that.”
