It seems to me that the MoJ form frames the debate.

What of the reverse onus of proof etc

I assume that the answers will be tabulated into some form of data matrix as a matter of processing ease.

Free speech is determined by philosophy but some legal drones call that being 'academic'; however, ideas have real-world consequences once out of the universities such as the 17thC puritan revolution and Marxism and Critical Theory. Thus:

(1) Collectivists (Marxists Socialists etc) want uniformity of opinion and thought;

(2) Neo-Liberals seem to be individualistic and want a series of "freedom froms" and little in the way of correlative duties-aka social obligations. My experience of certain legal neo lib i[group] was that it was not interested in other people's opinions- it is only their free speech particularly if it is at odds with theirs. Added to which there is an anti-intellectual tendency in neo liberlism;

(3) the Classical liberal position is pro the individual and free speech and the rights of the individual, freedom from paternalism; people are to be robust but are also to have inbuilt morality and judgment aka decency. Mill mentions minority discourse is to be polite when confronted with dominant discourse;

(4) The Conservative position has absorbed the former as the collectivist's mindset has advanced in our culture. It accepts the values we have inherited and I would say that it is pro-John Milton's Aeropagitica, that the value in free speech is to ascertain the truth as a social good. A culture of PR spin and lies is doomed. It points to intellectual freedom and freedom of conscience.

The Conservative position assumes the Mitonian vision which in my view is the right one to hold. Yet as Michael Knowles says in Speechless (2021) it tends to:

Conservatives have failed to thwart political correctness because most do not understand what it is. They have portrayed political correctness and its derivatives, including “wokeism” and “cancel culture,” as “censorship,” which we must oppose in the name of “liberty.” These bumper sticker arguments reveal that conservatives understand as little about liberty and censorship as they do about political correctness.

I have written pieces to move from the 'bumper sticker arguments' to get on to the next rung of the ladder of understanding, for BFD et al which I cannot get published. as I do not fit the publication style criteria. I understand that. People will raise their reading age to know. Yesterday, I received my copy of Mark Levin's American Marxism which is a good place to start to get substantive arguments up and running . It is to be noted that one (maybe more) Special Rapporteurs to the UN on Free Speech have counselled against hate speech legislation. Flow on 2nd order consequences, and the Woke Clerisy are not good at this, militate against the rush to hate speech

I do think that s 61 HRA 1993 should have religion added to it so as to protect Christians among other faiths. And incitement left as it is. "Stirring up" is too vague and elastic. would it involve the state as a plaintiff if there are protests and differing opinions? Noting that the 'misinformation witch hunt is rolling out here as it is in the USA.

The real essence involved or crux is that of freedom of conscience, that which defines the individual. That has a religious origin. It also holds that human nature exists and exists over time. It also has standards about objective nature.

Marxists do not accept this and Gramsci's advocated the need to upend common sense which is based on experience and physical reality. Marxist's argue for the social construction of the world. Groups 2,-4 above are suffering from false consciousness. Critical Theory advocates reject the law, objective knowledge and the western civilisation. Thus we get galimatias like Geology is racist; 2+ 2=4 is 'white patriarchal supremacy

Following Rousseau, they say society is at fault and all can be fixed with legislation and people are plastic non-entities and can be moulded and re moulded thereby. THs was said when the firearms legislation arrived

This is actually the real debate.

ViamediaNZ.blogspot.com for earlier pieces. Not all the old ones are up yet but many are featured on Solopassion thanks to Mr Perigo.

Thanks for that, it is very good.

Proposal 1: NO
Free speech is an absolute, inherent in Freedom that underpins civilized society.
The government's ONLY responsibility is the protection of Individual Rights, and that includes protecting the conditions that promote Freedom. Freedom is the only condition that supports human life. An Individual must be free to think, to make choices, in accordance with his/her rational self-interest. It is this condition that propels mankind toward a more prosperous society where each individual, in justice and in nature, is able to live his/her own life free from interference from others. It is Freedom that has enabled Man to bring himself out of the caves and rise to the greatest, most prosperous and most benevolent civilization that has ever existed. Free speech is a fundamental absolute corollary of freedom to think, make choices, gain knowledge, act and prosper. No one, no other, no group, no gang, no government or any other entity has a right to silence another human being.
The fact of a 'survey,' of asking the question, rests on the Individual (respondent) being able to think. Without free speech, there will be no thinking, no knowledge, no innovation, no human advancement. So, NO.
Proposal 2: NO
The Law as it stands is adequate, sufficient, enough to respond appropriately to any infringement of another person's right to think and act.
A Law must remain Objective. The proposed changes introduce an unacceptable level of subjectivism and vagueness as to render it impossible to know how to interpret it, to whom it will apply, what a penalty would actually penalize. A non-objective Law is a contradiction in terms - it cannot be applied equally to all or any individual, and has no place in our judicial body. Every Man and Woman is equal before the Law.
Proposal 3: NO
To even contemplate initiating legislation that would penalize 'insult' is to remove one's self from the realm of human interaction.
The very idea of amending our current legislation in the manner proposed is an 'insult' and offense to any rational human being. The very wording of this question strongly indicates that the promoters have already determined the proposed amendment will be come Law, and are giving only lip-service to soliciting genuine, good faith input from affected parties. I do not sanction this farcical process.
Proposal 4: NO
Government shall make NO Law that undermines the freedom of the Individual to think, to make choices, to act according to his/her rational self-interest. Any infringement on the conditions for Freedom is to undermine Freedom in its entirety - there is no half-way, there are no degrees of Freedom. A Man/Woman is free, or is a slave to some external entity other than himself/herself. A Man/Woman must be free to gain knowledge; gaining knowledge depends upon learning, listening, speaking, communicating all manner of ideas and thoughts. NO GOVERNMENT and no other entity has a right to prevent the free transmission of ideas.
Proposal 5: NO
Humans are thinking beings. Thinking requires discrimination, discrimination is judgement. We exist through making judgements, identifying similarities and differences, conceptualizing sensory perception into usable data towards understanding our existence. In order to live and thrive we must discriminate between what is good (for life) and what is evil (against life). To include the proposed prohibition of incitement to discriminate is to wipe out the very means by which humans survive and live.
The ONLY terminology that is acceptable in law is: INDIVIDUAL. With that: each, every, all, are equal under the Law.
The proposal goes against every basic necessity of Freedom that applies to each and every human being. This precludes any group, collective, tribe, gang, caste, or any other division of individuals into collective order.
Government shall make NO law that infringes on the rights of the individual. Each is a thinking, discriminating being who requires Freedom to live. Individual Rights are not to be granted nor penalized, nor revoked at the whim of any government - not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.
NO CONSENT.