Social media is awash with intemperate language, but that alone does not amount to harassment under the Harmful Digital Communications Act. Robust critique and debate is okay, but vicious personal attacks are not, the High Court ruled when banning for one year social commentator Pebbles Hooper from posting any further online comment about Bets Gee, owner of Auckland business Magnolia Kitchen. She had previously described Ms Gee as a deranged narcissist and a person who abused children.
A posting war between the two erupted in 2020 at the outset of a nationwide government-imposed pandemic lockdown. Ms Gee’s posting to Instagram followers about plans to keep Magnolia Kitchen open for trading resulted in an online backlash questioning whether her business was an ‘essential business’ and suggesting her staying open would contribute to spread of covid-19. Both sides accused the other of being cunts coupled with invitations to fuck off. The High Court was to later rule that these social media exchanges did not amount to harassment; rather they were a valid debate about lockdown rules and their implementation, though expressed in language not commonly used by a High Court judge.
What was held to be harassment was an extended online campaign by Ms Hooper critical of Ms Gee’s use of family members in posts promoting her business. Ms Hooper took the view Ms Gee was using her children for commercial gain and this amounted to child abuse. Ms Gee said photos of family in her posts was because online followers demanded an insight into her life as a small business owner. Seeing all aspects of my life gave value to the product they are buying from me, she said.
One posting showing her young son being given a small amount of alcohol and another in which he appears to have a black eye led to multiple complaints to Oranga Tamariki about Ms Gee. Ms Hooper was one of those who complained. Oranga Tamariki investigated, taking no action.
The High Court ruled that the personal abuse posted by Ms Hooper about Ms Gee amounted to harassment. Calling Ms Gee an ‘entitled, deranged and panicked narcissist’ and insinuating that she abused her children emotionally and possibly physically was harassment causing emotional distress to Ms Gee.
Ms Hooper was ordered not to post to any social media platform about Ms Gee, or to encourage any other person to do so, for the next twelve months.
Hooper v. Gee – High Court (29.07.22)
22.132